Inspectors General: Efforts to Develop Strategic Plans (Letter Report,
06/12/98, GAO/AIMD-98-112).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
inspectors general (IG) strategic planning efforts, focusing on: (1)
which IGs presently prepare strategic plans; (2) the extent to which
strategic plans were consistent with the Government Performance and
Results Act requirements; (3) additional information IGs included in
their strategic plans; (4) the extent to which IGs used their respective
agencies' strategic plans to develop their own plans; (5) the extent to
which IGs have been involved in developing their agencies' strategic
plans; (6) the extent to which a strategic plan prepared consistent with
the requirements of the Results Act would be useful to Congress, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the IG; and (7) IGs' views on
statutorily requiring them to prepare strategic plans.
GAO noted that: (1) the 48 IGs that it surveyed indicated that they were
all engaged in strategic planning efforts; (2) thirty-nine IGs reported
that they had completed strategic plans, with the remaining 9 stating
that they planned to complete their plans during 1998; (3) most IGs were
of the opinion that the requirements contained in the Results Act
provided an appropriate framework for preparing IG strategic plans; (4)
further, the IGs responded that their plans address many of the elements
that the Results Act requires for agency plans; (5) however, fewer IG
plans addressed such elements as the relationship between general goals
and annual performance goals and identification of external factors that
could affect achievement of goals; (6) in addition, the plans addressed
key management issues to varying degrees; (7) the IGs GAO surveyed
generally indicated that these management issues, if not included in
their strategic plans, were covered in other planning documents such as
annual audit plans; (8) most IGs also indicated that they considered the
agency's Results Act strategic plan at least to some extent in preparing
their own plan; (9) in addition, more than half of all the IGs reported
that they had at least some involvement in preparing the agency's
strategic plan; (10) a majority believed that a strategic plan that
satisfies the requirements of the Results Act would be useful to
Congress, OMB, and the IG in assessing IG performance and operations;
(11) the IGs were about evenly divided on the need for a statutory
requirement on strategic planning; (12) overall, about 29 percent
agreed, 33 percent disagreed, 27 percent agreed as much as disagreed,
and the remaining 10 percent had no opinion; and (13) of the IGs that
cited a reason for their disagreement, the most frequent comment made
was that such a mandate was unnecessary because IGs recognize the
importance of strategic planning as a basic part of good management and
are already engaged in planning efforts.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-98-112
TITLE: Inspectors General: Efforts to Develop Strategic Plans
DATE: 06/12/98
SUBJECT: Inspectors general
Accountability
Strategic planning
Congressional/executive relations
Agency missions
Surveys
Reporting requirements
IDENTIFIER: GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
June 1998
INSPECTORS GENERAL - EFFORTS TO
DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS
GAO/AIMD-98-112
IG Strategic Planning
(911842)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DFE - designated federal entity
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
IG - inspector general
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-279470
June 12, 1998
The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
The Honorable Stephen Horn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Special Committee on Aging
United States Senate
This letter responds to your request that we survey inspectors
general (IG) to obtain information on IG strategic planning efforts.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, commonly known as
GPRA or the Results Act, established strategic plans as the starting
point and basic underpinning within a larger framework of
performance-based management and accountability. Although the
Results Act requires each agency head to develop a strategic plan
covering the major functions and operations of the agency, it does
not specifically require that IGs have separate strategic plans.
We developed and sent a questionnaire on strategic planning to the 48
IGs whose respective agencies are required to prepare a strategic
plan in accordance with the Results Act. We asked (1) which IGs
presently prepare strategic plans, (2) the extent to which IG
strategic plans were consistent with Results Act requirements, (3)
what additional information IGs included in their strategic plans,
(4) the extent to which IGs used their respective agencies' strategic
plans to develop their own plans, (5) the extent to which IGs have
been involved in developing their agencies' strategic plans, (6) the
extent to which a strategic plan prepared consistent with the
requirements of the Results Act would be useful to the Congress, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the IG, and (7) the IGs'
views on statutorily requiring them to prepare strategic plans. All
48 IGs responded to the questionnaire. Appendixes I and II provide
detailed information on the IGs' responses to these seven questions.
The IGs' responses are summarized below.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The 48 IGs we surveyed indicated that they are all engaged in
strategic planning efforts. Thirty-nine IGs reported that they had
completed strategic plans, with the remaining 9 stating that they
planned to complete their plans during 1998. Most IGs (69 percent)
were of the opinion that the requirements contained in the Results
Act provided an appropriate framework for preparing IG strategic
plans. Further, the IGs' responded that their plans address many of
the elements that the Results Act requires for agency plans. For
example, almost all indicated that their plan contained a mission
statement, general goals and objectives, and approaches or strategies
for achieving goals. However, fewer IG plans addressed such elements
as the relationship between general goals and annual performance
goals (74 percent) and identification of external factors that could
affect achievement of goals (64 percent). In addition, the plans
addressed key management issues to varying degrees including
financial management issues (about 64 percent), information
technology (about 49 percent), the Year 2000 problem\1 (about 10
percent), and computer security (about 33 percent). The IGs we
surveyed generally indicated that these management issues, if not
included in their strategic plans, were covered in other planning
documents such as annual audit plans.
Most IGs also indicated that they considered the agency's Results Act
strategic plan at least to some extent in preparing their own plan.
In addition, more than half of all the IGs reported that they had at
least some involvement in preparing the agency's strategic plan. A
majority believed that a strategic plan that satisfies the
requirements of the Results Act would be useful to the Congress, OMB,
and the IG in assessing IG performance and operations. The IGs were
about evenly divided on the need for a statutory requirement on
strategic planning. Overall, about 29 percent agreed, 33 percent
disagreed, 27 percent agreed as much as disagreed, and the remaining
10 percent\2 had no opinion. Of the IGs that cited a reason for
their disagreement, the most frequent comment made was that such a
mandate was unnecessary because IGs recognize the importance of
strategic planning as a basic part of good management and are already
engaged in planning efforts.
--------------------
\1 The Year 2000 problem involves the inability of computer programs
at the Year 2000 to interpret the correct century from a recorded or
calculated date having only two digits to indicate the year.
\2 Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act), Public Law 95-452, as
amended, established Inspector General offices in federal departments
and agencies to create independent and objective units responsible
for (1) conducting and supervising audits and investigations, (2)
providing leadership and coordination and recommending policies to
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (3) detecting and
preventing fraud and abuse in their agencies' programs and
operations. The IG Act identifies 26 federal establishments that are
to have an IG appointed by the President with Senate confirmation and
30 designated federal entities (DFE) that are to have an IG appointed
by their agency's head.
The Results Act is a key component of the statutory framework that
the Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve
long-standing management problems that have undermined the federal
government's effectiveness and efficiency and to provide greater
accountability for results.\3 The Results Act seeks a shift in focus
away from such traditional concerns as activity levels towards a
single overriding issue: results. The act requires that goals be
set, performance measured, and accomplishments reported. An
important element in results-oriented management is an entity's
strategic planning effort. This effort is the starting point and
foundation for defining what an entity seeks to accomplish,
identifying the strategies it will use to achieve desired results,
and then determining how well it succeeds in reaching
results-oriented goals and achieving objectives. Developing a
strategic plan can help clarify organizational priorities.
The Results Act requires that an agency's strategic plan contain six
key elements. These elements are (1) a comprehensive mission
statement, (2) general goals and objectives for all major functions
and operations, (3) approaches or strategies and the various
resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives, (4) a
description of the relationship between the general goals and
objectives and the annual performance goals, (5) an identification of
key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could
significantly affect the achievement of the general goals, and (6) a
description of how past program evaluations were used to establish or
revise general goals and a schedule for future program evaluations.
Under the act, agency strategic plans are to cover a time period of
not less than 5 years forward from the fiscal year in which they are
submitted and are to be updated at least every 3 years.
--------------------
\3 Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for
Performance-Based Management and Accountability (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52,
January 28, 1998).
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Our objective was to respond to the seven questions noted above. To
accomplish our objective, we used a questionnaire to obtain
information on the IGs' strategic planning efforts. Prior to sending
out the questionnaire, it was pretested with the IGs from the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of State and revised
as needed.
The questionnaire was sent to the 48 IGs whose respective agencies
are required to prepare a strategic plan in accordance with the
Results Act. Of the 48 IGs, 26 are presidentially appointed and 22
are DFE IGs. All 48 of the IGs responded to the questionnaire. In
addition, we obtained and reviewed the most recent strategic plan
completed by each IG. We used these plans to confirm the responses
provided by the IGs on the contents of their plans. We performed our
review between December 1997 and March 1998 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested oral
comments on a draft of this report from the office of OMB's Deputy
Director for Management, the Vice Chair of the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency, and the Vice Chair of the Executive Council
on Integrity and Efficiency.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
On April 30, 1998, we received oral comments from the Office of
Management and Budget, the Vice Chair of the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency, and the Vice Chair of the Executive Council
on Integrity and Efficiency. They generally agreed with the contents
of the report and we have incorporated their comments as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members
of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology and
the Senate Special Committee on Aging; the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, House and Senate
Committees on the Budget; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. If
you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240.
Linda D. Koontz
Associate Director, Audit Oversight and Liaison
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IGS'
STRATEGIC PLANS
=========================================================== Appendix I
1. Which IGs presently prepare strategic plans?
As of January 14, 1998, the 48 IGs we surveyed responded that they
either had completed or were developing strategic plans. As shown
below, 39 of the 48 IGs had completed a strategic plan. The nine
remaining IGs stated that they plan to complete their plans during
1998. Appendix II identifies the IGs that have completed a strategic
plan and those that are developing a plan.
Figure I.1: Number of IGs That
Have Completed or Are
Developing Strategic Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
2. Are IG strategic plans consistent with the Results Act's
requirements for strategic plans prepared by agencies?
As shown below, virtually all of the IGs stated that their strategic
plans contained a mission statement, goals, and approaches or
strategies for achieving the goals. However, the plans less
frequently identified IG resource and skill needs, described the key
external factors that could affect achievement of the goals, or
discussed how past efforts were used in formulating the current plan.
As detailed in appendix II, a majority of the IG plans covered a
period of 5 to 6 years with plans to update them every 1 to 3 years.
These time frames are consistent with Results Act requirements for
agency strategic plans.
Figure I.2: Results Act
Elements Included in the IGs'
Strategic Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: This figure is based on the 39 IGs that have strategic plans.
3. What additional information do the IGs include in their strategic
plans?
We also asked the IGs the extent to which their plans addressed
certain issues relevant to their operations. First, we asked about
the IG vision statement which was unanimously adopted by the IGs in
1994 and emphasized their role as change agents for continuous
improvement in their agencies. Further, we asked if the IG's
strategic plans addressed areas in their agency that have been
identified by GAO as being at high risk\1 because of vulnerabilities
to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement--risks that are of central
concern to IGs. These high-risk areas include two governmentwide
issues--computer security and the Year 2000 problem--as well as
numerous specific agency programs. Finally, we asked about two
critical areas in which governmentwide improvement is needed to
resolve high-risk problems and improve accountability: financial
management and information management and technology.
The IGs' responses indicated that these items were addressed to
varying degrees. For example, most plans (90 percent of the
presidentially appointed and 68 percent of the DFE IGs) included the
IG vision statement. On the other hand, only 5 percent of the
presidentially appointed and 16 percent of the DFE IGs addressed the
Year 2000 conversion issue. Most of the IGs (about 78 percent) did
not discuss agency-specific high-risk areas in their plans, when
applicable. The IGs indicated, however, that high-risk and other
management issues, if not addressed in their strategic plans, were
generally discussed in other IG documents, such as annual audit
plans.
Figure I.3: Information
Included in the IGs' Strategic
Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: This figure is based on the 39 IGs that have strategic plans.
4. To what extent did the IGs' consider their respective agencies'
strategic plans to develop their strategic plans?
An agency's strategic plan, which identifies its goals and
strategies, could be useful to IGs in formulating their own goals and
priorities. The majority of IGs indicated that they considered their
respective agency's plan at least to some extent in developing their
own plan. A greater percentage of presidentially appointed IGs
considered the agency plan than did the DFE IGs (73 percent versus 59
percent).
Figure I.4: Extent to Which
the Agencies' Plans Were
Considered in Developing the
IGs' Strategic Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
5. To what extent have the IGs been involved in preparing their
respective agencies' strategic plans?
The IGs' knowledge of program performance and vulnerabilities could
be useful to agencies in preparing their strategic plans. The IGs'
responses indicated that the majority were involved, at least to some
extent, in developing their agencies' strategic plans. These IGs
indicated that their roles included participating in meetings,
providing comments on draft plans, or giving advice. The DFE IGs
were proportionately less involved, with 59 percent having little or
no involvement in developing their agencies' plans.
Figure I.5: Extent to Which
the IGs Were Involved in
Developing Their Agencies'
Strategic Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
6. To what extent is a strategic plan prepared consistent with the
requirements of the Results Act useful to the Congress, OMB, and the
IG?
As shown below, the majority of respondents were of the opinion that
a strategic plan prepared consistent with the requirements of the
Results Act would be useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG itself
in assessing IG operations and performance. In their narrative
comments to the questionnaire, several IGs noted that other
documents, such as the semiannual reports to agency heads and the
Congress, which are already required under the IG Act, are also good
sources of information.
Figure I.6: Extent to Which
the IGs Believe That a
Strategic Plan Prepared
Consistent With the
Requirements of the Results Act
Would Be Useful to the
Congress, OMB, and the IG
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
7. What are the views of the IGs on being statutorily required to
prepare strategic plans?
Although most IGs supported the concept of strategic planning, they
were divided on whether they should be statutorily required to
prepare strategic plans. In the aggregate, about 29 percent strongly
agreed or agreed, 27 percent agreed as much as disagreed, and 33
percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Of the IGs that cited a
reason for their disagreement, the most frequent comment made was
that such a mandate was unnecessary because IGs recognize the
importance of strategic planning as a basic part of good management
and are already engaged in planning efforts.
Figure I.7: Extent to Which
the IGs Believe Strategic Plans
Should Be Statutorily Required
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
--------------------
\1 High-Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/HR-97-1, February 1997).
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF
PRESIDENTIAL AND DESIGNATED
FEDERAL ENTITY INSPECTORS GENERAL
STRATEGIC PLANS
========================================================== Appendix II
Years covered by Years plan
Strategic plan plan updated
------------------ ---------------- ----------------
5 to 1 to
6 3
Agency Yes No years Other\ years Other\
------------------------ -------- -------- ------ -------- ------ --------
Presidential Inspectors General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for International X 5 1
Development
Corporation for National X 5 3
Service
Department of X 6 3
Agriculture
Department of Commerce X\a
Department of Defense X 5 2
Department of Education X Other\b 3
Department of Energy X 5 3
Department of Health and X 5 3
Human Services
Department of Housing X\a
and Urban Development
Department of Interior X 5 1
Department of Justice X\a
Department of Labor X 5 1
Department of State X 5 1
Department of X\a
Transportation
Department of the X 5 3
Treasury
Department of Veterans X 6 3
Affairs
Environmental Protection X 5 3
Agency
Federal Deposit X Other\b 1
Insurance Corporation
Federal Emergency X 5 1
Management Agency
General Services X 6 1
Administration
National Aeronautics and X Other\b 1
Space Administration
Nuclear Regulatory X\a
Commission
Office of Personnel X 5 3
Management
Railroad Retirement X\a
Board
Small Business X 6 3
Administration
Social Security X 2 1
Administration
================================================================================
Total Presidential 20 6 16 4 20
Inspectors General
Designated Federal Entity Inspectors General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Futures X 5 Semiannu
Trading Commission al
Consumer Product Safety X 5 2
Commission
Equal Employment X 5 2
Opportunity Commission
Farm Credit X 3 1
Administration
Federal Communications X 5 1
Commission
Federal Election X\a
Commission
Federal Labor Relations X 5 As
Authority needed
Federal Housing Finance X 5 1
Board
Federal Maritime X 5 5
Commission
Federal Trade Commission X 5 5
National Archives and X 5 2
Records Administration
National Credit Union X 5 3
Administration
National Endowment for X 5 3
the Arts
National Endowment for X\a
the Humanities
National Labor Relations X 5 4
Board
National Science X\a
Foundation
Peace Corps X 5 3
Pension Benefit Guaranty X 5 2
Corporation
Securities and Exchange X 5 3
Commission
Tennessee Valley X Other\b 1
Authority
United States X 5 3
International Trade
Commission
Postal Service X 5 1
================================================================================
Total Designated Federal 19 3 17 2 14 5
Entities
Inspectors General
================================================================================
Total 39 9 33 6 34 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Plan is being developed.
\b Years covered by plan are unspecified or updated as needed.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Jackson W. Hufnagle, Assistant Director
Robert A. Pewanick, Assistant Director
Edith A. Pyles, Assistant Director
Darby W. Smith, Assistant Director
Clarence A. Whitt, Senior Accountant
Cristina T. Chaplain, Communications Analyst
KANSAS CITY FIELD OFFICE
Dieter M. Kiefer, Assistant Director
SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE
Perry G. Datwyler, Senior Evaluator
RoJeanne Liu, Senior Evaluator/Computer Specialist
*** End of document. ***