Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning	 
Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability (31-MAR-05,  
GAO-05-300).							 
                                                                 
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the
largest government reorganization in over 50 years, involving	 
170,000 employees and a $40 billion budget. Given the magnitude  
of this effort, strategic planning is critical for DHS to ensure 
that it meets the nation's homeland security challenges. GAO was 
asked to assess the extent to which DHS's planning process and	 
documents (1) address required elements of the Government	 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other good	 
strategic planning practices and (2) reflect its homeland and	 
non-homeland security mission responsibilities. 		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-300 					        
    ACCNO:   A20539						        
  TITLE:     Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's       
Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability	 
     DATE:   03/31/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Agency missions					 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Federal law					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Future budget projections				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Mission budgeting					 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Productivity in government 			 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Stakeholder consultations				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-300

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats
     and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of
                                Representatives

March 2005

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

      Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and
                                 Accountability

                                       a

GAO-05-300

[IMG]

March 2005

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and
Accountability

  What GAO Found

DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, releasing its
first strategic plan in 2004 that details its mission and strategic goals.
Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement exist. The creation of DHS
brought together 22 agencies to coordinate the nation's homeland security
efforts and to work with Congress and numerous other organizations,
including federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private
sector, to further this mission. Although DHS planning documents describe
programs requiring stakeholder coordination to implement, stakeholder
involvement in the planning process itself was limited. Involving
stakeholders in strategic planning efforts can help create an
understanding of the competing demands and limited resources, and how
those demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing. As
DHS updates its strategic plan, earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder
consultation will help ensure that DHS's efforts and resources are
targeted at the highest priorities and that the planning documents are as
useful as possible to DHS and its stakeholders.

While DHS's strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required
elements, it does not describe the relationship between annual and
long-term goals. This linkage is crucial for determining whether an agency
has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving the
intended results for its long-term goals. While DHS's strategic planning
documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not including
them in the strategic plan makes it difficult for DHS and its stakeholders
to identify how their roles and responsibilities contribute to DHS's
mission and potentially hinders Congress's and other key stakeholders'
ability to assess the feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. Additionally,
several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in the strategic plan
could be further developed through the adoption of additional good
strategic planning practices. For example, identifying the specific
budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to achieve its goals
could demonstrate the viability of the strategies and approaches presented
for achieving its long-term goals.

Finally, although DHS's priority is its homeland security mission-which
emphasizes deterring terrorism in the United States-DHS's planning
documents clearly address its responsibility for non-homeland security
mission programs as well, such as its response to natural disasters. In
addition, DHS planning officials said that non-homeland security
responsibilities were represented in the planning process and documents
due, in part, to the commitment of top leadership.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

     Letter                                                                 1 
                                          Results in Brief                  2 
                                             Background                     4 
                                 DHS Planning Has Made Progress, but       
                                          Opportunities for                
                                          Improvement Exist                 8 
                           DHS's Homeland Security Mission Is a Priority,  
                                           but Plans Also                  
                                   Address Other Responsibilities          13 
                                             Conclusions                   14 
                                Recommendations for Executive Action       15 
                                 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation        15 
Appendixes                                                              
               Appendix I:       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology        17 
              Appendix II:    Comments from the Department of Homeland     19 
                                              Security                     
                             Table 1: GPRA-Required Elements of Federal    
     Table                               Agencies' Strategic               
                                                Plans                      

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FYHSP Future Years Homeland Security Program
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

March 31, 2005

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

To address the federal government's challenge of responding to threats
against the homeland, President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of
2002,1 creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS, which
began operations in March 2003, is the largest government reorganization
in over 50 years, involving 22 federal agencies, 170,000 employees, and a
$40 billion budget. While DHS is intended to coordinate and centralize the
leadership of many homeland security activities, homeland security is a
shared responsibility of numerous partners, including other federal
agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. Considering
the breadth of this responsibility, strategic planning is especially
important to clearly identify how stakeholders' responsibilities and
activities align to address homeland security efforts. Without thoughtful
and transparent planning that involves key stakeholders, DHS may not be
able to implement its programs effectively.

Given the implications of such an undertaking, you asked us to assess
DHS's planning process and the results of this process. Specifically, we
reviewed (1) the extent to which DHS's planning process and associated
documents addressed the required elements of the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reflected good strategic planning
practices and (2) the extent to which DHS's planning documents reflect
both its homeland security and non-homeland security mission
responsibilities.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents and
planning guidance. We also reviewed the requirements contained in GPRA and
accompanying committee report language, strategic planning practices based
on prior GAO work, and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for developing strategic plans. In addition,

1 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, November 25, 2002.

we interviewed DHS officials responsible for agencywide planning, as well
as those responsible for planning in DHS's directorates and component
agencies. For more information on our scope and methodology, see appendix
I.

We performed our work from April 2004 through February 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief	DHS has made considerable progress in its planning
efforts, releasing its first strategic plan in 2004 that details its
mission and strategic goals. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement
exist. Although DHS's planning documents describe programs requiring
stakeholder coordination to effectively implement them, stakeholder
involvement in the planning process itself was limited. Given the many
other organizations at all levels of government and in the private sector
whose involvement is key to meeting homeland security goals, earlier and
more comprehensive stakeholder involvement in DHS's planning process is
essential to the success of DHS's planning efforts. In developing the
strategic plan, DHS officials did not consult with other federal agencies
with which DHS shares responsibility for homeland security initiatives. In
addition, DHS officials had only limited consultation with nonfederal
stakeholders, providing a draft of the plan to the Homeland Security
Advisory Council for their review. Though DHS officials briefed
congressional stakeholders on the strategic planning progress, they did
not consult directly with Congress while developing the department's
mission statement or strategic goals. DHS officials acknowledge that they
should consult more with key stakeholders in future planning efforts. Such
involvement is important to ensure that stakeholders help identify and
agree on how their daily operations and activities contribute to
fulfilling DHS's mission.

DHS's strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required elements-a
mission statement, long-term goals, strategies to achieve the goals,
external key factors, and program evaluations-but does not describe the
relationship between annual and long-term goals. The linkage between
annual and long-term goals is crucial for determining whether an agency
has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving the
intended results of its long-term goals. DHS officials said that because
of the limited time available to create the strategic plan, they decided
not to include a discussion of annual performance goals in order to
achieve broad consensus among agency components on DHS's mission and
long-term strategic goals and objectives. While the Performance Budget
Overview,

which serves as the overview of DHS's fiscal year 2005 annual performance
plan, includes such a description, not including this in the strategic
plan makes it difficult for DHS officials and stakeholders to identify how
their roles and responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission. In addition,
while DHS's planning process followed a number of good practices and its
plan contained most of the GPRA-required elements, these could be further
developed through the implementation of additional good strategic planning
practices.

Finally, although its priority is its homeland security mission-which
emphasizes counterterrorism efforts in the United States-DHS's planning
documents clearly address its responsibility for its non-homeland security
mission programs as well. For example, a goal in the strategic plan is
"Service: Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade,
travel, and immigration." In addition, component agency officials said
DHS's top leadership helped ensure that the non-homeland security mission
programs received appropriate attention in the planning documents and
planning process.

In order to make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for public
oversight and accountability, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland
Security ensure that DHS's next strategic planning process include direct
consultation with external stakeholders, including Congress, federal
agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. In
addition, we recommend that the Secretary ensure DHS's next strategic plan
includes a description of the relationship between annual performance
goals and long-term goals, as required by GPRA. Finally, we recommend that
the next strategic plan incorporate several additional good strategic
planning practices: a timeline for achieving long-term goals; a
description of the specific budgetary, human capital, and other resources
needed to achieve those goals; a schedule of program evaluations planned;
and a discussion of strategies to ameliorate the effect of any key
external factors.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security
for comment. DHS generally agreed with our recommendations and provided
additional comments for consideration. While acknowledging that
consultation with nonfederal stakeholders was limited, DHS pointed out
that it had had some consultation with a departmental advisory group. We
revised the draft to acknowledge this consultation. Further, DHS implied
that its Future Years Homeland Security Program document (FYHSP)-a 5-year
resource plan-includes information on the relationship between

annual performance goals and long-term goals, suggesting that this
information need not be included in the strategic plan. However, the FYHSP
contains information regarding the programs that support the strategic
goals rather than a description of how the annual performance goals relate
to the long-term goals. Moreover, we continue to believe that this
information should be contained in the strategic plan-as required by
GPRA-rather than in separate documents to provide a readily accessible and
clear linkage of the department's annual goals to its overall strategic
goals. Additionally, DHS was concerned that our recommendation implied
that it had not used good strategic planning practices. We have added
language to make clear that we recognize that DHS employed a number of
good planning practices and that it should adopt additional ones in the
future. In addition, we received technical comments from DHS, which we
incorporated where appropriate. Official comments from DHS are provided in
full in appendix II.

Background	The Homeland Security Act of 2002 outlines DHS's
responsibilities for initiatives supporting both a homeland security and a
non-homeland security mission. DHS's homeland security mission is to
prevent, reduce vulnerability to, and recover from terrorist attacks
within the United States. DHS's non-homeland security mission-also
referred to as non-terrorism-related responsibilities-includes programs
such as the Coast Guard's marine safety responsibilities and the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate's natural disaster response
functions.

GAO has previously identified strategic planning as one of the critical
success factors for new organizations. As part of its transformation, we
noted that DHS should engage in strategic planning through the involvement
of stakeholders; assessment of internal and external environments; and an
alignment of activities, core processes, and resources to support
mission-related outcomes.2 We have reported that the mission and strategic
goals of a transforming organization like DHS must become the focus of the
transformation, define its culture, and serve as the

2 GAO, Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges
Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security, GAO-05-33
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).

vehicle for employees to unite and rally around.3 The mission and
strategic goals must be clear to employees, customers, and stakeholders to
ensure they see a direct personal connection to the transformation.

Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving results
and providing objective, results-oriented information to improve
congressional decision making. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the
starting point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management.
GPRA requires that an agency's strategic plan contain six key elements, as
shown in table 1.

      Table 1: GPRA-Required Elements of Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans

                          Required element Definition

(1) A comprehensive agency mission statement A concise summary of what the
                        agency does, as required by law.

(2) Agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major An explanation
of what results are expected, described in a way functions and operations
that allows for a future assessment.

(3) Approaches (or strategies) and the various resources needed to achieve
the goals and objectives

A brief description of the operational processes, staff skills, and
technologies, as well as the human capital, information, and other
resources needed.

(4) A description of the relationship between the long-term goals An outline of
  the type, nature, and scope of performance goals and and objectives and the
    annual performance goals how those goals relate to the long-term goals.

(5) An identification of key factors, external to the agency and beyond
its control, that could significantly affect the achievement of the
strategic goals A description of external factors that may affect goal
achievement and would allow Congress and the agency to judge the
likelihood of achieving the strategic goals. (6) A description of how
program evaluations were used to establish or revise strategic goals and a
schedule for future evaluations Objective, informal assessments of the
results, impact, or effects of a program or policy.

Sources: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and OMB guidance.

In addition, GPRA requires agencies to consult with Congress and solicit
the input of others as they develop these plans.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security, a foundation of DHS's
strategic plan, set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and
minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from attacks that may
occur. The strategy sets forth a plan to improve homeland security through

3 GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers
and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).

the cooperation of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations
in an array of functions, with DHS having a prominent role in coordinating
these functions. In addition, the strategy states that the United States
"must carefully weigh the benefit of each homeland security endeavor and
only allocate resources where the benefit of reducing risk is worth the
amount of additional cost." We have advocated a risk management approach
to guide the allocation of resources and investments for improving
homeland security.4 Specifically, a risk management approach would provide
a decision support tool to help DHS establish and prioritize security
program requirements, planning, and resource allocations.

DHS's own strategic planning process began in July 2003, with the creation
of the Strategic Plan Development Group. The group consisted of officials
from 15 separate DHS components and offices, including general counsel and
directors of strategic planning from across DHS. By the fall of 2003, the
group had created a draft strategic plan with goals and objectives for
each component. However, according to officials involved, the group
members were authorized to represent their component agencies but not to
negotiate priorities in order to create departmentwide goals. Such a
discussion was needed to develop a departmentwide document. Consequently,
following the work of the Strategic Plan Development Group, DHS's Deputy
Secretary brought DHS senior leaders together in December 2003 to develop
DHS's vision, mission, and strategic goals and achieve senior leadership
ownership of the strategic plan.

DHS issued its first departmentwide strategic plan in February 2004. The
plan includes DHS's vision and mission, core values, and guiding
principles. In addition, the plan describes DHS's seven strategic goals
and corresponding objectives. A summary paragraph that describes the
general approaches DHS will take to achieve each objective is also
included. According to several senior DHS officials, the strategic plan
was the primary guidance followed for DHS's management integration.5 In
addition to the strategic plan, DHS officials identified four other
documents as the

4 See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach,
GAO-02-150T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001); Homeland Security: A Risk
Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts, GAO-02-208T
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001); and GAO-05-33.

5 GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).

key planning documents for the department. These documents are as follows.

o 	Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview. This is the overview of
DHS's Congressional Budget Justification for fiscal year 2005 and serves
as the overview of DHS's fiscal year 2005 annual performance plan, in
compliance with GPRA. The document describes the performance levels
associated with the department's Fiscal Year 2005 President's Budget to
Congress. For each strategic goal it includes means and strategies, as
well as performance goals, measures, and targets. In addition, this
document identifies the program and lead organization responsible for each
performance goal.

o 	DHS's Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years Homeland Security Program
(FYHSP). Developed pursuant to Section 874 of the Homeland Security Act,
the fiscal year 2005-2009 FYHSP, dated May 2004, is a 5-year resource plan
that outlines departmental priorities and the ramifications of program and
budget decisions. The FYHSP includes a general discussion of the nation's
threats and vulnerabilities, including a description of current and future
terrorist techniques and tactics; types of weapons and threats terrorists
may use; and potential terrorist targets and timing of an attack. In
addition, the FYHSP includes a brief discussion of the inflation factors
and economic assumptions based on underlying guidance provided by OMB. The
FYHSP lays out projected resource requirements through fiscal year 2009
for each strategic goal and includes a table aligning programs to the
strategic goals. Finally, the FYHSP includes a description of performance
priorities for each strategic goal. DHS's 2006-2010 FYHSP was issued to
Congress on March 4, 2005. It is designated "For Official Use Only," and
is thus not publicly available. DHS expects to update the FYHSP annually.

o 	DHS's Milestones Report. The Milestones Report is an internal DHS
planning document containing performance goals linked to the long-term
strategic goals described in the strategic plan. For each performance
goal, the Milestones Report provides annual milestones for fiscal years
2005 through 2009. In addition, the Milestones Report aligns

specific programs with the strategic goals and identifies what percentage
of program funding is allocated to addressing these strategic goals.6

o 	DHS's themes and owners papers. The themes and owners papers are
internal planning documents that address DHS's top seven priorities during
its second year of existence, March 2004 through March 2005, as identified
by the former Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS directorates were
identified as the "owner," or lead group, for addressing a "theme," or
priority, and directorate officials submitted a proposal detailing how
they would address the theme in the coming year. The themes addressed are
(1) stronger information sharing and infrastructure protection, (2)
standards for interoperable equipment, (3) integrated border and port
security systems, (4) new technologies and tools, (5) more prepared
communities, (6) improved customer service for immigrants, and (7) 21st
century department.

  DHS Planning Has Made Progress, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist

DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, but future
efforts can be improved. While DHS's planning documents discuss the need
for stakeholder coordination during program implementation, stakeholder
involvement was limited during the strategic planning process. While the
strategic plan included five of the six GPRA-required elements, it did not
describe the relationship of annual goals to long-term goals. However,
DHS's planning process continues to develop and mature as the department's
transformation continues.

    DHS's Planning Documents Were Developed with Limited Stakeholder Input

The process of developing DHS's strategic plan and other strategic
planning documents involved minimal consultation with key stakeholders,
including Congress, other federal agencies, state and local governments,
and the private sector. GPRA requires that agency officials solicit the
input of stakeholders as they develop their strategic plans. Further,
stakeholder involvement during the planning process is important to ensure
DHS's efforts and resources are aligned with other federal and nonfederal
partners with shared responsibility for homeland security and that they
are

6 According to the Milestones Report, each program has a primary strategic
goal that it supports, but can support up to three strategic goals.

targeted at the highest priorities. Such involvement is also important to
ensure stakeholders help identify and agree on how their daily operations
and activities contribute to DHS's mission. Additionally, DHS's planning
documents describe areas where DHS needs to coordinate with stakeholders
to implement its programs, achieve its goals and objectives, and meet its
homeland security and non-homeland security responsibilities. The
importance of consultation to DHS was recently underscored in GAO's
High-Risk Series: An Update,7 in which we designated as high risk the
establishment of appropriate and effective information-sharing mechanisms
to improve homeland security. While this area has received increased
attention, the federal government still faces formidable challenges
sharing information among stakeholders in an appropriate and timely manner
to minimize risk.

Though DHS officials briefed congressional stakeholders on the strategic
planning progress, they did not consult directly with Congress while
developing the department's mission statement or strategic goals. DHS
officials said that when briefed, congressional stakeholders requested
that the strategic plan include more detail, including specific
performance goals and measures. However, according to DHS officials, these
goals and measures were not included in order to meet OMB's time frame for
issuing the plan. To meet this time frame, DHS decided to keep the plan's
content at a high level and focus on achieving broad consensus among
agency components on DHS's mission and long-term strategic goals and
objectives. Nevertheless, DHS officials acknowledged that Congress should
be more involved in future planning efforts. As we previously reported,
Congress needs to be considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the
outset, since it is a key user of performance information8 and to ensure
that congressional priorities are addressed in the planning documents. We
have suggested that agencies consult with congressional stakeholders at
least once every new Congress in order to clarify performance
expectations.9

7 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January
2005).

8 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).

9 GAO-04-38.

Further, DHS officials said they did not consult with other federal
agencies responsible for shared homeland security initiatives in
developing the strategic plan. We have reported that a focus on results
implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar results
should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent.10
Stakeholder consultation in strategic planning efforts can help create a
basic understanding of the competing demands that confront most agencies,
the limited resources available to them, and how those demands and
resources require careful and continuous balancing. The National Strategy
for Homeland Security identifies six federal agencies responsible for 43
homeland security initiatives. While DHS was identified as the agency with
lead responsibility for a majority of these initiatives, there were
multiple lead agencies for 12 of these initiatives. For example, DHS and
the State Department share lead responsibility for the initiative "create
`smart borders.'" As part of this initiative, the strategy states that DHS
would improve information provided to consular offices so that individual
applicants can be checked in databases and would require visa-issuance
procedures to reflect threat assessments. These shared initiatives require
that DHS look beyond its organizational boundaries and coordinate with
other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned in order to meet
consistent goals. However, to ensure that the shared initiatives have
common goals, and that the goals are appropriate, consultation during the
planning stage is vital.

Finally, DHS had limited consultation with nonfederal stakeholders, such
as state and local governments and the private sector, in its strategic
planning process. Nonfederal stakeholder involvement in DHS's strategic
planning process is vital considering that state and local governments
have primary responsibility as first responders for homeland security and
approximately 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure is
privately owned. DHS officials explained that expanded involvement of
nonfederal stakeholders was not practical within OMB's time frame for
completing the strategic plan. Instead, DHS provided a draft of the
strategic plan to a departmental advisory group, the Homeland Security
Advisory Council, for its review and comment.11 Further, DHS component
agency planning officials said that instead of consulting directly with
nonfederal stakeholders, officials from DHS components were expected to
represent

10 GAO-04-38.

11 The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides advice and
recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to homeland security.
The council consists of leaders from state and local government, first
responder communities, the private sector, and academia.

stakeholder views when providing their input to the strategic plan. For
example, officials in DHS's Private Sector Office were expected to
represent the opinions of private sector officials based on the office's
work with private sector representatives.

    Relationship between Annual and Long-term Goals Not Addressed in DHS's
    Strategic Plan

DHS's strategic plan addressed five of the six GPRA-required elements, but
did not include a description of the relationship between annual and
longterm goals. We have reported that this linkage is critical for
determining whether an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess
progress toward achieving the intended results for its long-term goals.12
DHS and OMB officials said the decision to keep the content of the
strategic plan at a high level, and not include a discussion of annual
performance goals, was necessary to achieve broad consensus among agency
components on DHS's mission and long-term strategic goals. Although the
Performance Budget Overview linked specific annual goals and performance
measures to the long-term strategic goals, not including a description of
how the annual goals relate to the long-term goals in the strategic plan
makes it difficult for DHS and its stakeholders to identify how their
roles and responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission and potentially
limits Congress's and other key stakeholders' ability to assess the
feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. OMB continues to work with DHS to
develop performance measures and goals that are critical to DHS's
integrated mission and reinforce the crosscutting responsibilities of
component agencies.

Several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in DHS's strategic plan
could be further developed through the implementation of additional good
strategic planning practices. Specifically, DHS's plan describes long-term
agencywide goals and objectives but does not include a timeline for
achieving these goals. For example, the first strategic goal in DHS's
strategic plan is "Awareness: Identify and understand threats, assess
vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and disseminate timely
information to our homeland security partners and the American public."
There are four objectives related to this goal, but there is no
description of when to expect results or when a goal assessment would be
completed. However, the Milestones Report includes a timeline for expected
results of programs that address the long-term goals, with performance
measures

12 GAO-04-38.

and targets for each long-term goal through fiscal year 2009. Adding this
information to the strategic plan would therefore require little
additional effort and would make the plan itself a more useful document.

In addition, the strategic plan generally describes strategies and
approaches to achieve the long-term strategic goals but does not include
the specific budgetary, human capital, or other resources needed. For
example, the first objective under the second strategic goal,
"Prevention," states that DHS plans to "secure our borders against
terrorists, means of terrorism, illegal drugs, and other illegal
activity." The approach to achieve this objective requires "the
appropriate balance of personnel, equipment and technology." However, the
description does not include details on the specific personnel, equipment,
and technology that would be needed. Although the sensitive nature of some
homeland security information may limit the level of detail, including
such resource-related information in the strategic plan is critical for
understanding the viability of the strategies presented to achieve the
long-term goals.

Further, the impact of program evaluations on the development of strategic
goals could be discussed in greater detail in the strategic plan.
Inclusion of these components is necessary to ensure the validity and
reasonableness of DHS's goals and strategies as well as for identifying
factors likely to affect performance. Evaluation can be a critical source
of information for Congress and others in assessing (1) the
appropriateness and reasonableness of goals; (2) the effectiveness of
strategies by supplementing performance management data with impact
evaluation studies; and (3) the implementation of programs, such as
identifying the need for corrective action. Rather than identifying
specific program evaluations and providing a schedule of evaluations, the
strategic plan states only that DHS planned to (1) integrate strategy and
execution; (2) assess performance, evaluate results, and report progress;
(3) collaborate; and (4) refine. The plan did not include a description of
the evaluations used to develop DHS's strategic goals, nor did DHS address
how future evaluations would be used to revise the goals and objectives.

Finally, DHS identified some key factors that may affect its ability to
achieve its strategic goals and objectives, an element required by GPRA.
However, based on our prior review of agency strategic plans, this element
could be further developed with an explanation of the actions DHS intends

to take to mitigate these factors.13 For example, DHS identified the need
for "international cooperation" as a key factor that can significantly
affect the achievement of its goals. To make its plan more useful, DHS
could include in its next update a discussion of how the department might
work together with other federal agencies to help obtain international
cooperation in achieving shared goals.

  DHS's Homeland Security Mission Is a Priority, but Plans Also Address Other
  Responsibilities

DHS planning documents specify that DHS's homeland security mission- which
emphasizes counterterrorism efforts-is the key driver of planning and
budgeting decisions. For example, the fiscal year 2005 FYHSP, DHS's
long-term resource allocation plan, states, "the Department's overriding
priority is to defend and protect the homeland from terrorism." In
addition, the DHS strategic plan states that the DHS strategic goals and
objectives are directly linked to accomplishing the three objectives of
the National Strategy for Homeland Security: (1) prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States, (2) reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism,
and (3) minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

However, these planning documents also address DHS's non-homeland security
mission in areas such as immigration services and disaster relief. For
example, see the following.

o 	DHS's strategic plan includes the following strategic goal: "Service:
Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel, and
immigration." The focus of this goal is to improve service to those
individuals immigrating to and visiting the United States.

o 	The Milestones Report includes the following performance goal:
"Eliminate the application backlog by the end of FY 2006. Achieve 6 month
cycle time for all applications." This goal focuses specifically on
improving the efficiency of DHS's processing of citizenship and
immigration applications.

o 	The Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview includes the following
performance measure: "international air passengers in compliance with
agricultural quarantine regulations (percent

13 GAO-04-38.

compliant)." The focus of this measure is to safeguard against potentially
dangerous nonnative species entering the United States.

In addition, planning officials in DHS's component agencies that address
the non-homeland security mission said these responsibilities were fairly
represented in the planning process and documents. They attributed this,
in part, to the efforts of senior leadership. For example, prior to a
strategic planning meeting in December 2003 for senior officials, senior
leadership developed "straw man" mission statements that included both
homeland security and non-homeland security missions. According to DHS
officials responsible for planning, this was done to ensure that one role
was not neglected for the sake of another and both were represented in the
final mission statement.

Conclusions	Given the enormity and importance of DHS's transformation,
having a strategic plan that outlines and defines DHS's mission and goals
is vital. While DHS has made progress in its efforts to date, improvements
to its strategic planning process would help to ensure DHS's efforts and
resources are aligned with other federal and nonfederal partners with
shared responsibility for homeland security.

Earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder involvement in DHS's planning
process is perhaps the most important area for improvement. Consultation
with stakeholders during the planning process creates a shared
understanding of what needs to be achieved, resulting in more useful and
transparent planning documents and helping ensure the success of
stakeholder partnerships. Just as important, stakeholder consultation in
strategic planning efforts can help create a basic understanding of the
competing demands that confront most agencies, the limited resources
available to them, and how those demands and resources require careful and
continuous balancing.

Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving results
and providing objective, results-oriented information to improve
congressional decision making. While the body of DHS's strategic planning
documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not having all of
the required elements in its strategic plan limits Congress's and other
key stakeholders' ability to assess the feasibility of DHS's long-term
goals. While DHS followed a number of good planning practices, by adopting
others it could improve the strategic plan's usefulness with little extra
effort.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

To make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for public oversight
and accountability, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security
take the following three actions. First, ensure that DHS's next strategic
planning process includes direct consultation with external stakeholders,
including Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, and the
private sector.

Second, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure that
DHS's next strategic plan-the agency's primary public planning
document-includes a description of the relationship between annual
performance goals and long-term goals, as required by GPRA.

Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure that
DHS's next strategic plan further develop the GPRA-required elements
addressed by adopting additional good strategic planning practices.
Specifically, the Secretary should ensure that the strategic plan includes
a timeline for achieving long-term goals; a description of the specific
budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to achieve those
goals; a schedule of program evaluations planned; and a discussion of
strategies to ameliorate the effect of any key external factors.

  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

On February 25, 2005, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary
of Homeland Security. On March 14, 2005, we received written comments from
DHS that are reprinted in appendix II. In addition, we received technical
comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. DHS generally agreed
with our recommendations, and provided additional comments for our
consideration.

While DHS officials acknowledged that expanded involvement of nonfederal
stakeholders was not practical within OMB's time frame, they pointed out
that they sought to consult with nonfederal stakeholders by providing a
draft to the Homeland Security Advisory Council for its review and
comment. We revised the draft to acknowledge this consultation. DHS
officials stated that they plan to seek more interaction with nonfederal
stakeholders during the next plan revision.

Further, in response to our recommendation, DHS implied that its FYHSP
includes information on annual performance goals and long-term goals,
suggesting that this information need not be included in the strategic
plan. However, the FYHSP contains information regarding the programs that

support its strategic goals rather than a description of how the annual
performance goals relate to the long-term goals. Moreover, we continue to
believe that this information should be contained in the strategic plan-as
required by GPRA-rather than in separate documents to provide a readily
accessible and clear linkage of the department's annual goals to its
overall strategic goals. As we noted earlier, the FYHSP is not a public
document, available only for official use, making it of limited value for
accountability purposes.

Additionally, DHS was concerned that our recommendation to adopt a number
of good planning practices implied that it had not used good strategic
planning practices. We have added language to make clear that we recognize
that DHS employed a number of good planning practices and that it should
adopt additional ones in the future.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after
its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and other interested parties. Copies will
also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-6543 or [email protected] or Kimberly Gianopoulos at
[email protected]. Major contributors to this report included Benjamin
Crawford, Chelsa Gurkin, and Amy W. Rosewarne.

Sincerely yours,

Bernice Steinhardt Director, Strategic Issues

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to assess (1) the extent to which the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) planning process and documents
address required elements of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA) and reflect good strategic planning practices and (2) whether
DHS's planning process and documents reflect attention to homeland
security and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents and
related material and interviewed numerous DHS officials. Our review of
planning materials included the Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2005
Performance Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years Homeland
Security Program, Milestones Report, and themes and owners papers. In
addition, we reviewed the National Strategy for Homeland Security.

To meet our first objective, we relied on requirements contained in GPRA
and accompanying committee report language1 and planning practices based
on prior GAO work, guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for developing strategic plans,2 and DHS internal planning
guidance. We then reviewed DHS's planning documents to identify where the
GPRA-required elements could be found. To meet our second objective, we
reviewed these planning documents to determine if they addressed both
DHS's homeland security and non-homeland security mission
responsibilities.

In addition, we interviewed officials at OMB, as well as DHS officials
responsible for agencywide planning in its Office of the Deputy Secretary
and Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. We also interviewed
officials responsible for planning in DHS's directorates and component
agencies. Specifically, we met with officials in the Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, the Science and Technology
Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (part of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate), the Coast Guard, the
Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Private Sector Office, and the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination. To meet our first

1 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rep. No. 58, 103d Cong. 1st
Sess. (1993).

2 OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of Strategic
Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

objective, we interviewed officials about the process used to create the
planning documents. To meet our second objective, we interviewed officials
about the process for ensuring accountability for DHS's homeland security
and nonhomeland security mission responsibilities.

Written comments from DHS are included in appendix II. We conducted our
work from April 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:
  Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***