U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit from	 
Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight (08-OCT-04,  
GAO-05-77).							 
                                                                 
The Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary 
asked GAO to determine (1) the extent of the U.S. Commission on  
Civil Rights' compliance with the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal	 
oversight is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of	 
the implementation of recommendations from GAO's past reviews of 
the Commission. 						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-77						        
    ACCNO:   A12952						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit
from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight	 
     DATE:   10/08/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Noncompliance					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Budget requests					 
	     Human capital					 
	     Performance plans					 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-77

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Committees

October 2004

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

    Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased
                                   Oversight

GAO-05-77

[IMG]

October 2004

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased
Oversight

  What GAO Found

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that
monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United
States-has not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this
act, agencies are required to submit strategic plans and annual
performance plans that detail their long-term and annual goals as well as
information on how they plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires
agencies to submit annual performance reports that provide information on
their progress in meeting the goals. However, the Commission has not
updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997. Without revisiting its
strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which to develop its
annual goals and evaluate its performance. In addition, its most recent
annual performance plan and annual performance report contain weaknesses
that limit the agency's ability to effectively manage its operations and
communicate its performance. For example, the performance plan does not
discuss the Commission's strategies or resources for achieving its goals,
does not provide budgetary information for its programs, and does not
provide performance indicators for some annual goals. Similarly, the
performance report does not account for the Commission's performance for
many of the annual goals set forth in its performance plan and does not
provide plans, schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the
Commission's unmet goals.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission's budgetary
and human capital operations in recent years. OMB's oversight has focused
on the Commission's budget requests and GPRA plans and reports. OPM
conducted two reviews of the Commission's human capital management systems
in the 1990s and made recommendations for improvement, including
improvements to its grievance and performance appraisal systems. Although
the Commission has implemented some of OPM's earlier recommendations, it
has not implemented five of six broader, systemic recommendations made in
1999 for improvement to its human capital management systems. Unlike many
other executive agencies, the Commission does not have an Inspector
General to provide oversight of its operations beyond OMB and OPM.

GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission's management
operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in response
to the recommendations in GAO's 1994 and 1997 reports. However, the
Commission has not implemented three of the four recommendations in GAO's
October 2003 report for improving the agency's management and procurement
practices.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA

Requirements
OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has
Made Limited Changes in Response to OPM's Recommendations
Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to

Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist
Conclusion
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments

                                       1

                                      2 4

                                       7

13

16 18 19 19 20

Appendix I	Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 22
GAO's Response to Comments 32

Appendix II	Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response

Appendix III	GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's
Response

  Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50

GAO Contacts 50
Staff Acknowledgments 50

                Page i GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
HRM human resource management
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management

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.

               Page ii GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

October 8, 2004

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary United
States Senate

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary House of Representatives

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established as an independent,
bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency to monitor and report on the
status of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in 1957,
the Commission has worked on critical civil rights issues, including
racial segregation, impediments to voting rights, and the debate on
federal affirmative action programs. In recent years, the Congress has
requested that we assess the adequacy of the Commission's management
practices and procedures. In 1994, we reported problems identified in the
Commission's handling of travel activities and made recommendations for
specific actions. 1 In a 1997 study of the Commission, we found numerous
management and operational issues2 and, in October 2003, we found that the
Commission lacked good project management and that its contracting
procedures were inadequate.3

Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practices of
high-performing organizations, which strengthen their management practices
and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals, aligning their
management systems with these goals, and regularly evaluating their
performance. For federal agencies, the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these practices, requiring federal
agencies to set goals and use performance measures for management and
budgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA, federal agencies-including

1See GAO, Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners' Travel Activities,
GAO/GGD-94-130 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1994).

2See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management
Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997).

3See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial
Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

                Page 1 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

independent commissions-must periodically submit long-term strategic
plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. The
Chairmen of both the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary asked us
to determine (1) the extent of the Commission's compliance with the
planning and reporting requirements of GPRA, (2) federal oversight that is
provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the Commission's
implementation of recommendations from GAO's reviews in the past decade.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant
statutes and regulations; the Commission's most recent GPRA plans and
reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM) and the
Commission's HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports on the
Commission's management practices and our guidance on the implementation
of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided to the Commission,
we focused on executive branch oversight provided by OMB and OPM. We also
reviewed the Commission's June 2004 response to the recommendations we
made in our October 2003 report on the Commission. Finally, we conducted
interviews with the Commission's Staff Director, Special Assistant to the
Staff Director, Human Resources Director, and Budget Chief, as well as
with officials from OPM and OMB. We conducted our work from April to
August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997,
and its most recent annual performance plan and report contain weaknesses
that limit the Commission's ability to effectively manage its operations
and communicate its performance. Because it has not updated its strategic
plan, the Commission has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to
affirm their ongoing significance to the agency's overall mission. Without
revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which
to develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. Although the
Commission's most recent annual performance plan contains annual
performance goals, these goals are often not distinguished from program
activities. The plan also does not provide information on the resources
and strategies required to meet the Commission's annual goals, nor does it
provide performance measures for evaluating the achievement of these
goals. Although OMB guidance now directs agencies to include budget
information in its annual performance plans, the Commission's plan for
fiscal year 2005 does not align the cost of its programs with

  Results in Brief

Page 2 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

specific annual goals. In addition, the Commission's most recent
performance report does not, in many cases, clearly indicate whether the
goals were achieved and does not include 3 years of performance data for
all of its annual goals as required. In addition, the report does not
provide the Commission's plans or timeframes for accomplishing its unmet
goals.

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital
oversight of the Commission, and, overall, the agency has made a limited
number of changes in response to OPM's report recommendations to the
Commission. OMB reviewed the Commission's budget request and GPRA plans
and reports in preparing the President's annual budget, but has not
focused on Commission management issues. According to OMB officials, OMB
does not provide the same level of oversight for organizations with small
budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as that provided for larger
organizations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the
1990s, OPM conducted two evaluations of the Commission's human capital
management systems. In 1996, OPM found that the Commission was "badly in
need of managerial attention," citing, for example, a lack of credible
grievance and performance appraisal systems. In its 1999 evaluation, OPM
noted that several problems identified in the previous evaluation had not
been addressed and made further recommendations to improve the
Commission's human capital management practices. To date, the Commission
has not adopted five of six broader, systemic human capital
recommendations from OPM's 1999 review. For example, the Staff Director
continues to retain final authority for approving all performance
appraisal ratings and promotions instead of delegating that authority to
managers, as recommended. The Commission also does not have an Inspector
General, who can provide an additional means of oversight for federal
agencies and commissions, nor is it required to have one.

While the Commission took some actions to address the recommendations in
our earlier reports, our more recent reviews indicate that financial and
management problems persist. In 1994, we made recommendations to improve
the Commission's handling of travel activities for specific individuals,
and the agency indicated in 1995 that it had acted on these
recommendations. In 1997, we made recommendations to improve the agency's
project management and accountability for daily operations. Although the
Commission made changes in response to these 1997 recommendations, in 2003
we found problems with the agency's project management similar to those
found in 1997. In our October 2003 report, we made four additional
recommendations for improving the Commission's management and procurement
practices. Although the Commission has

                Page 3 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

made a few changes, such as contracting with a contract and procurement
specialist, the Staff Director disagrees with the need for most of the
recommendations, and the agency has not adopted them.

We are including a matter for congressional consideration to strengthen
the Commission's accountability. We are also making six recommendations
intended to strengthen the Commission's compliance with GPRA requirements,
management practices, and oversight.

In commenting on our draft report, the Commission did not comment on our
recommendations, but disagreed with most of the findings and conclusions
upon which our recommendations are based. For example, the Commission
disagreed with our findings on its GPRA products and human capital
practices, asserting that these products and processes were appropriate
and sound for an agency with a small budget and staff. Overall, we did not
agree with the Commission's comments on our draft report. We continue to
believe that our findings, conclusions, and recommendations are sound and
that the implementation of our recommendations is needed to strengthen the
Commission's management practices. The Commission's detailed comments and
our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated
clarifications in the report as appropriate.

                                   Background

Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission is a
factfinding agency required to report on civil rights issues. It is
required to study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies
with regard to illegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of the
laws. It must also submit at least one report annually to the President
and the Congress that monitors federal civil rights enforcement efforts.
Other reports may be required or issued as considered appropriate by the
Commission, the President, or the Congress. The Commission serves as a
national clearinghouse for information related to its mission. In
addition, it investigates charges by individual citizens who claim to be
deprived of their voting rights. The Commission may hold hearings and,
within specific guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and
have witnesses appear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement
powers that would enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the
Commission

                Page 4 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal, state, or local
government agency for action.4

The Commission's annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million since
fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-time
Commissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. Four
Commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the President Pro
Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the same
political party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commission's
members, the President may also designate a Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson from among the Commissioners.

A Staff Director, who is appointed by the President with the concurrence
of a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily operations of the
Commission and manages the staff in six regional offices and the
Washington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission operates four units
in its headquarters whose directors and managers report directly to the
Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, Office of General
Counsel, Office of Management, and a Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
As of June 2004, the Commission employed approximately 70 staff members,
including the eight Commissioners and their eight assistants.

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees-the minimum required
by statute-one for each state and the District of Columbia. The State
Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with local and state
civil rights issues. Their members serve without compensation and assist
the Commission with its fact-finding, investigative, and information
dissemination functions.

    Planning and Reporting Requirements under GPRA

To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in
federal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue certain
documents to be made available to the public and used by congressional
decision-makers.5 OMB provides guidance to federal agencies on

4Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights issues. For
example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with
enforcing specific federal employment antidiscrimination statutes. Also,
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal
statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability,
religion, and national origin.

5Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285(1993).

                Page 5 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

complying with GPRA requirements through its Circular A-11, which is
updated annually. In addition, we have published guidance and reports to
federal agencies on best practices for complying with GPRA.6

Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following three
documents to the President, Congress, and OMB:7

o  	Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no less
than 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should be
updated every 3 years and include the agency's mission statement and
long-term strategic goals. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting
point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management. Strategic
goals are long-term, outcome-oriented goals aimed at accomplishing the
agency's mission. In developing goals for their strategic plans, agencies
are required to consult with the Congress and other stakeholders.

o  	Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agency's annual
performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goals. An
agency's annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed to reach its
long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective, quantifiable,
and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies to include budget
information in their performance plans and encourages agencies to align
resources with annual goals.8 Prior to their submissions for fiscal year
2005, agencies were not directed to associate program costs in this way.

o  	Annual performance report. This document provides information on an
agency's actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This report
should provide information on the results of its progress in meeting

6See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996);
Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate
Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997); The
Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance
Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1998); and Results-Oriented
Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater
Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).

7Although, under the statute, OMB can exempt organizations with annual
outlays of $20 million or less from the requirements to produce a
strategic plan, annual performance plan, and annual performance report,
OMB has not exempted the Commission from these requirements.

8OMB Circular A-11 pt 6, S: 220 (July 2003).

                Page 6 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required to
explain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals and describe
their plans for addressing these issues.

    Executive Branch Oversight Responsibilities

  The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements

Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to
the Commission, including OMB for financial management and OPM for
personnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of the
President, is responsible for preparing and implementing the President's
annual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how to comply with
GPRA.9 OPM is the central personnel management agency of the federal
government charged with administering and enforcing federal civil service
laws, regulations, and rules. OPM is also required to establish and
maintain an oversight program to ensure that agencies comply with
pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.10

Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The Inspector
General Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve as
independent, objective offices within certain federal departments or
agencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as
prevent and detect fraud and abuse.11 Agencies that do not have their own
Office of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General services from
other federal agencies.12

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997,
as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performance plan and
report contain weaknesses that limit the Commission's ability to
effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance.

9See 31 U.S.C. S:S: 501, 503(2000).

105 U.S.C. S: 1104(b)(2).

11Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101(1978); 5 U.S.C. app. 3.

12Agencies can obtain the services of an Inspector General from other
agencies using their authority under the Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. S:
1535) or by procuring such services directly.

                Page 7 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    The Commission Has Not Updated Its Strategic Plan Since 1997

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since fiscal
year 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required under GPRA.
According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission should have submitted,
updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years 2000 and 2003. The
2003 revision should have covered the period through at least fiscal year
2008. Commission officials told us that the agency is working on
developing an updated strategic plan and intends to submit it to OMB by
Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process of revising their
strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions, such as consulting with
the Congress as required by the act, have not yet occurred, according to
Commission officials.

Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the Commission
has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoing
significance to the agency's overall mission. The Commission has not
determined if changes to its strategic goals are warranted due to factors
such as external circumstances or not meeting its annual goals. In
addition, because the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, its
strategic goals also are not informed by a current analysis of the
Commission's purpose and work. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the
Commission does not have a firm basis on which to develop its annual
goals. The Commission continues to rely on strategic goals from 1997 to
formulate its current annual goals.

Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool for
communicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff, including
informing them of the significance of its work. In addition to serving as
a document for external use, the strategic plan can be used as a
management tool and, according to OMB guidance, should outline the process
for communicating goals and strategies throughout the agency and for
assigning accountability to managers and staff for achievement of the
agency's goals.

                Page 8 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    The Commission's Annual Performance Plan Falls Short of Meeting GPRA
    Requirements and OMB Guidance

The Commission's most recent performance plan, for fiscal year 2005,
includes several program activities that are referred to as goals;
however, it is unclear how these activities will help the agency achieve
its strategic goals or accomplish its mission. For example, the plan lists
14 fact-finding projects, each of which has as many as 5 annual goals.13
Many of these goals, however, are activities, such as holding a public
hearing or publishing a report. Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is
for each of the Commission's State Advisory Committees to focus on regular
meetings in fiscal year 2005 and on completing their projects. However,
this goal is not linked to achieving the agency's strategic goal to
enhance the Committees' ability to monitor civil rights in the United
States.

In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elements
required under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how the
Commission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goals laid
out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how an
agency's annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources and
strategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commission's fiscal
year 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed to
achieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, the
Commission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does not
indicate which offices will be responsible or describe the strategies and
resources needed to carry out this task.

The Commission's performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does not
include budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Instead of
associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the plan
includes a single amount for its total operations. The potential problems
stemming from the Commission's failure to associate costs with specific
annual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be exacerbated
by the large gap between the Commission's budget requests and its actual
appropriations. Since 1999, the Commission's appropriations have averaged
approximately 26 percent less than the amount requested. For fiscal year
2004, the Commission based its annual performance plan on a

13In conducting fact-finding projects, the Commission gathers and analyzes
information from a wide range of sources, including research, statistical
analysis, and hearings. According to the Commission's performance report,
fact-finding projects can involve five performance goals, including report
publication, public event, report dissemination, consideration of
recommendations by agencies, and action initiated by agencies in response
to findings.

                Page 9 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

budget request of $15.2 million, but its appropriation for that year
totaled only $9.1 million.

In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annual
performance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate the
impact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to revise
their plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the fact that the
Commission's plans are based upon a budget that is so much larger than its
actual appropriations limits the plans' usefulness in detailing how the
agency will achieve its annual goals and in assessing the impact of
appropriations decisions on its planned performance.

Furthermore, the Commission's annual performance plan for fiscal year 2005
does not provide the performance indicators to be used in measuring
achievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an agency's
performance plan shall include performance indicators to be used in
measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes
of each program activity, and provide a basis for comparing actual program
results with annual goals. For some annual goals-particularly those
related to promoting greater public awareness, assisting individuals in
protecting their civil rights, and enhancing the capacity of the State
Advisory Committees-the performance plan does not have any performance
indicators. For example, the performance plan states that, in fiscal year
2005, the Commission will develop and implement a coordinated multimedia
public service announcement campaign designed to educate the public about
important civil rights matters and discourage discrimination while
promoting tolerance. However, the plan does not describe measures that can
be used to evaluate the attainment of this goal in terms of outputs, such
as the number of public service announcements, or outcomes, such as
increased awareness of civil rights matters.

In the annual performance plan, the Commission does not adequately
describe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used to
assess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires agencies to
submit information on how they plan to verify and validate the performance
measures used to assess the accomplishment of their annual goals. This
requirement helps to ensure that their assessments are valid, reliable,
and credible. The Commission's fiscal year 2005 plan includes a general
description of its verification and validation processes, but it does not
specify the evaluation methods to be used or identify the limitations or
constraints of these methods. For example, the plan states that, in
assessing the outcomes achieved through issuance of its reports, the
Commission may conduct follow-up meetings with affected agencies,

               Page 10 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

congressional committees, and other interested organizations. However, the
plan does not describe how these groups will be selected, the data to be
collected, how the data will be assessed, or who will be responsible for
conducting these meetings or collecting and assessing the data.

    The Commission's Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2003 Does Not
    Fulfill Several GPRA Requirements and Overall Does Not Communicate the
    Commission's Performance

Although the Commission's most recent annual performance report, for
fiscal year 2003, describes the agency's achievements as well as reasons
for not meeting certain goals, the report does not include several
elements required under GPRA and provides little evidence and context for
evaluating the agency's performance. Furthermore, many of the results are
descriptive narratives that do not characterize the Commission's
performance. Overall, these problems diminish the report's usefulness as a
tool for managing the Commission's operations and holding the agency
accountable for achieving its goals.

The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it does
not account for all of the annual goals in the Commission's fiscal year
2003 performance plan-a fundamental GPRA requirement.14 The report
provides no account of the Commission's performance for many of the annual
goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance plan. In particular,
the report does not account for the Commission's performance for 6
fact-finding projects-a core activity of the agency. For example, the
fiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commission's fact-finding project,
"Media Role in Civil Rights," would accomplish four goals, including
having a public event, yet the performance report provides no account of
this project or any description of the agency's progress in meeting these
goals.

Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals, the
information provided for many of these goals is incomplete or ambiguous.
For example, the Commission's environmental justice project has three
goals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and formal
consideration of the recommendations of the report by affected agencies.
However, although the performance report describes the purpose of the
environmental justice report as well as its publication and dissemination,
the performance report does not indicate whether the Commission

14For this analysis, we compared the results reported in the Commission's
fiscal year 2003 performance report with the goals described in the
agency's performance plan for fiscal year 2003.

               Page 11 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

obtained any formal response to its recommendations from affected
agencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each State Advisory
Committee Chairperson or Representative would participate in at least one
civil rights activity per year. Although the performance report includes
extensive narrative describing the work of the State Advisory Committees,
it does not indicate whether this goal had been achieved.

The Commission's performance report also does not provide the relevant
data needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA,
performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data in
describing the agency's progress in achieving its goals. While the
performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goal from
its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals, the report
does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not relevant for
assessment. For example, the performance report includes data describing
the type and number of complaints received in fiscal year 2003 and for the
3 prior years. However, the report does not include data-such as the
amount of time it took to respond to complaints-that could be used to
assess whether the Commission met its goal of responding in a timely
manner.

Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans,
schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission's
unmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, the
agency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving the
goal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why that
was the case and what action is recommended. While the report explains why
some goals were not met, it does not provide plans, schedules, or
recommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For example, the
performance report states that, due to limited resources, the Commission
was unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement agencies to
ensure that civil rights complaints were received and appropriately
processed. However, the report does not provide any detail on whether it
would continue to pursue this goal, how the Commission plans to meet this
goal in the future, or what actions could be taken to help the Commission
meet this goal, such as obtaining assistance from other federal agencies
in maintaining accessible and relevant records.

               Page 12 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

  OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has Made Limited
  Changes in Response to OPM's Recommendations

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital
management oversight for the Commission. OMB's oversight of the Commission
focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providing oversight of its
human capital management, OPM conducted reviews and made recommendations
to the Commission in the 1990s to improve the Commission's human capital
management and overall management. In response, although the Commission
implemented some of the recommended changes, many issues that OPM raised
in 1996 continued to be of concern in 1999. Although an Inspector General
can provide an additional means of oversight for agencies and independent
commissions, the Commission does not have an Inspector General and is not
required to have one.

    OMB Provides Oversight for the Commission's Budgetary Process, but Has Not
    Focused on Management Issues

OMB's oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according to OMB
officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible for
reviewing the Commission's annual performance plan, budget request,
apportionment request, and annual performance report.15 Before the
Commission's budget request is due, OMB provides the Commission with
guidance and updated information on the submission of GPRA documents. With
regard to the annual performance plan, OMB generally reviews the long-term
goals and performance measures used to determine the Commission's
performance in meeting its goals. OMB also reviews the Commission's budget
request as part of its role in developing the President's budget. While
OMB reviews the Commission's annual performance plans and budget requests,
according to OMB officials, it does not approve or reject these documents,
but acknowledges their receipt and sends comments back to the agency as
appropriate. However, Commission officials said that OMB has not provided
feedback on its annual performance plans in recent years. Each fall, OMB
also receives the Commission's apportionment request, which describes how
the Commission would like its appropriations distributed. According to OMB
officials, once an apportionment agreement has been reached between the
Commission and OMB, the Commission sends this agreement to the Treasury,
which issues a warrant to release funds to the agency. Finally, OMB
reviews the Commission's annual performance report to ensure that

15Apportionment refers to the action by which OMB distributes amounts
available for obligation in an appropriation or fund account. An
apportionment divides amounts available for obligation by specific time
periods (usually quarters), activities, projects, objects, or a
combination.

               Page 13 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

its funds are spent according to its performance plans and that its goals
were met.

In addition to reviewing the Commission's annual budget submissions, OMB
reviewed and approved the Commission's February 2004 request to reduce its
personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentive payments, or
"buyouts," to encourage staff in certain job classifications to
voluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission requested authority to offer
buyouts to six employees. OMB officials discussed this request with
Commission officials and approved the request in April. The Commission
offered buyouts to all employees who had 3 or more years of government
service in several job classifications. The Commission granted buyouts to
three staff members, who accepted.

OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies' management,
including the Commission, but this oversight has been limited because of
the small size of the agency and its budget, according to OMB officials.
OMB officials told us that the agency does not provide the same level of
oversight for organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the
Commission, as that provided for larger organizations, such as the
Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, even though the
Commission does not have a current strategic plan, OMB has not requested
an updated plan from the Commission, according to Commission officials. In
addition, OMB officials told us that they have taken no actions in
response to our October 2003 findings that the Commission violated federal
procurement regulations and lacked key management practices because the
volume of purchasing by the Commission is far below the levels that
concern OMB. For example, the Commission's largest contract is for less
than $160,000.

               Page 14 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    OPM Provides Oversight for the Commission's Human Capital Management
    Systems, and the Commission Has Made Limited Improvements in Response to
    OPM's Recommendations

According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with human capital
oversight through its audits of agencies' human capital management
systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every 4 to 5 years or
on request, as needed.16 In 1996 and 1999, OPM conducted two reviews of
the Commission's human capital management systems and made recommendations
in each report for improvements.

In analyzing the Commission's response to OPM reviews, we focused on six
recommendations from OPM's 1999 report that involved systemic changes to
the Commission's human capital management systems.17 As of August 2004,
the Commission had not implemented five of these six recommendations.
Findings from these reviews included the following:

o  	In its November 1996 report, OPM's main finding was that the
Commission was an agency "badly in need of managerial attention," citing
the Commission's poor documentation practices, lack of credible grievance
and performance management systems, and employees' highly negative
perceptions of the Commission's organizational climate.

o  	In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commission's
human capital management systems complied with Merit System Principles,
its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses associated with
accountability, delegation, recruitment, performance appraisals, and
incentive awards. The report noted that these concerns were similar to the
concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report. For example, as of
1999, the Commission had not established an internal self-assessment
program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPM made 16 recommendations in 1999 to
help the Commission improve its management of human resources. As of
August 2004, we found that the Commission had not implemented five of six
broader, systemic

16These reviews are conducted to determine how well an agency's human
resources programs, operations, and use of personnel authorities
contribute to mission accomplishment and whether the actions taken comply
with Merit Systems Principles, laws, and regulations. Merit Systems
Principles constitute the framework for federal human resources
management. See 5 U.S.C. S: 2301.

17Of the 16 recommendations made by OPM in 1999, we judgmentally selected
6 recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the
Commission. We did not analyze the Commission's responses to the 10
remaining recommendations. (For descriptions of these six OPM
recommendations and the Commission's responses, see appendix II.)

               Page 15 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

recommendations made by OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions of these
six OPM recommendations and the Commission's responses.)

    The Commission Lacks the Oversight of an Inspector General

  Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to Recommendations
  in GAO Reports, Problems Persist

Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO have identified
continuing management and accountability problems at the Commission, it
may not be sufficient to resolve such longstanding concerns through annual
budgetary reviews and management reviews based on congressional requests
or periodic audit cycles. An Inspector General can provide an additional
means of oversight for federal agencies, including independent commissions
and boards, but the Commission currently has no such oversight. Several
small agencies have obtained such services for audits and investigations
through memorandums of understanding with the General Services
Administration. However, the Commission does not have an Inspector General
of its own, nor does it obtain these services from another agency. The
Staff Director told us that, although he has thought about the possibility
of obtaining these services, he does not believe the Commission has the
funds needed to obtain the services of an Inspector General.

Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commission's travel, management, and
financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. The
Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in our
1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has not implemented
three of the four recommendations in our October 2003 report. This most
recent report included several recommendations to improve the Commission's
management and procurement practices. The Staff Director issued a letter
in June 2004 in response to this report disagreeing with most of the
recommendations and describing the actions taken by the agency. We also
interviewed Commission officials to clarify their responses to the
recommendations in our October 2003 report.

    The Commission Took Actions in Response to the Recommendations in Our 1994
    and 1997 Reports, but Related Problems Continue

Although the Commission took various actions to address the
recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problems
persist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the Commission's
handling of travel activities for specific individuals and made
recommendations for improvement. For example, in response to our finding
that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a timely manner,
we recommended that the Commission direct the Commissioners to do so, as
required by federal travel regulations. In 1995, the Commission issued
revised travelg procedures that incorporated our recommendation for timely
filing of travel vouchers by the Commissioners. (As part of a

               Page 16 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

separate assignment, we are currently reviewing the Commission's fiscal
year 2003 financial transactions that include a review of travel-related
transactions.) In 1997, we found numerous operational issues, reporting
that the management of the Commission's operations lacked control and
coordination; its projects lacked sufficient documentation; senior
officials were unaware of how Commission funds were used and lacked
control over key management functions; and records had been lost,
misplaced, or were nonexistent.18 In the report, we made recommendations
for specific changes to the Commission's administrative procedures and
project management systems, and the agency took some actions in response.
However, in 2003, we found that the actions taken did not fully address
the problems identified in our 1997 report.

    The Commission Has Not Implemented Most Recommendations from Our 2003 Report

In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had made some
improvements in its project management procedures for Commissioners and
staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements of good project
management, such as providing Commissioners with project cost information
and opportunities to contribute to Commission reports before they are
issued. We also reported that the Commission lacked sufficient management
control over its contracting procedures and that little, if any, external
oversight of the Commission's financial activities had taken place, since
no independent accounting firm had audited the Commission's financial
statements in at least 12 years.19 To address these issues, we recommended
that the Commission

1. 	monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information
provided to Commissioners,

2. 	adopt procedures that provide for increased Commissioner involvement
in project implementation and report preparation,

18See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management
Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997) and U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls,
GAO/T-HEHS-97-177 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 1997). In 1998, we reported
on the status of the Commission's progress in addressing our
recommendations. See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Update on Its
Response to GAO Recommendations, GAO/HEHS-98-86R (Washington D.C.: Feb. 3,
1998).

19See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial
Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

               Page 17 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

3. 	establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to
be in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and

4. 	take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation and
audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for
fiscal year 2004.

The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, and the
Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letter
responding to our report recommendations, Commission officials asserted
that the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to be
decided by the Commissioners.20 In addition, they disagreed with the need
for the third recommendation and asserted that they were taking steps to
address the last recommendation. Although they disagreed with the third
recommendation, the Commission hired a contracting and procurement
specialist starting in December 2003 to provide supplemental services, and
the Staff Director acknowledged that the Commission could improve in this
area. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had yet to contract with an
independent auditor to prepare for meeting the requirements of the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002.21 (See appendix III for further
details on the Commission's responses to these recommendations.)

Conclusion 	With its history of management problems, the Commission faces
significant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or occasional
event. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that, if done well,
is integral to an organization's entire operations. By not devoting the
time and resources required to update its strategic plan, the Commission
has no assurance that it is pursuing long-term goals that reflect the
needs of its key stakeholders and that address the many management
challenges presented by the shifting external and internal environments in
which it operates. Furthermore, the Commission lacks a foundation to use
in

20Under 31 U.S.C. 720, when the Comptroller General issues a report that
includes a recommendation to the head of an agency, the head of the agency
is required to submit a written statement on the actions taken. This
statement must be submitted to the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not later than 60
days from the date of the report. However, the Commission did not provide
a statement to the committees in response to our October 2003 report
recommendations until June 1, 2004, after we had asked for the status of
their statements in our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. These
statements were due to the committees in December 2003.

21Pub. L. No. 107-289, 116 Stat. 2049(2002).

Page 18 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

aligning its daily activities, operations, and resources to support its
mission and achieve its goals. Without using the GPRA planning process to
periodically reexamine its long-term goals and set its course, the
Commission is not in a strong position to set relevant annual goals or
develop measures for assessing whether it has achieved them. Given the
consistent shortfall between the Commission's annual budget requests and
its appropriations over the past decade, it is even more important for the
Commission to chart a strategic course that is realistic.

Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices in
response to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that remain are
still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering nature of the
Commission's management difficulties. Unless the Commission systematically
monitors its implementation of OPM's and GAO's recommendations, it is not
likely that it will significantly improve its management and human capital
management systems. Finally, annual budgetary and other reviews based on
periodic cycles or specific requests may not be sufficient to address
longstanding concerns about the Commission's management and
accountability. Because the Commission does not have an Inspector General,
it does not appear likely that it will have the additional independent
oversight needed to address management problems that others have
identified and to hold itself accountable for resolving them.

To strengthen the Commission's accountability, the Congress should
consider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of an
existing Inspector General at another agency.

To strengthen the Commission's management practices, we recommend that the
Commission

o  	update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRA's required schedule
and include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance;

o  	ensure that future annual performance plans include all elements
required under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levels requested in
the President's Budget, and are revised if necessary to reflect actual
appropriations;

Matter for Congressional Consideration

  Recommendations for Executive Action

Page 19 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

  Agency Comments

o  	ensure that annual performance reports include all elements required
under GPRA;

o  	implement all of the recommendations in OPM's and GAO's previous
reports;

o  	include the status of the Commission's efforts to implement OPM's and
GAO's recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and

o  	seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another agency
to help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of problems and
deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits and
investigations.

We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. The
Commission's formal comments and our responses are contained in appendix
I.

In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on our
recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and conclusions.
We have carefully reviewed the Commission's concerns and overall do not
agree with its comments on our findings and conclusions. For example, the
Commission disagreed with our GPRA findings, asserting that its GPRA
processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The
Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not costeffective
or efficient for it to institute its own accountability system for
managing its human resources, as OPM had recommended. The Commission
similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be an "extreme"
challenge to institute our October 2003 report recommendations. We
disagree with these assertions. The Commission's size is not relevant
here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission to address
longstanding management and human capital problems identified in previous
OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, instead of implying that it is
acceptable for the Commission as a small agency to operate under
diminished expectations for GPRA compliance, the Commission could make use
of GPRA's planning and reporting framework to strengthen itself as an
agency. For example, the Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to
update and sharpen its goals, clearly identify the strategies and
resources needed to achieve those goals, and improve its management and
human capital practices. The Commission could then also use GPRA's
reporting framework to demonstrate the progress it has made towards
achieving those goals.

               Page 20 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized our
approach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained inaccurate
and incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the report within
an artificially constrained timeline. We strongly disagree. At all times,
we scoped, designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with
applicable professional standards and our quality assurance requirements.
Furthermore, many of the Commission's comments about how we conducted our
work were themselves misleading and inaccurate. For example, we did not
suddenly and drastically change our focus, as the Commission asserted. In
our May 2004 entrance conference with the agency, we noted our specific
focus on certain areas, including the Commission's GPRA products and the
agency's actions in response to OPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on
oversight of the Commission and GPRA requirements remained consistent
throughout the assignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our
objectives and methodologies more specifically, and we shared our
refocused objectives with the Commission when we completed the design
phase of our work in July. We therefore continue to believe that our
findings, conclusions, and recommendations are sound. The Commission's
detailed comments and our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I.
We incorporated clarifications in the report as appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we
will
send copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and
other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffs
have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.

Robert E. Robertson
Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

               Page 21 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

See response to broad assertions.

See response to broad assertions.

               Page 22 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

See response to broad assertions.

See response 1.

See response 2.

See response to broad assertions.

               Page 23 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 3.

                                See response 4.

                                See response 5.

                                See response 6.

               Page 24 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 7.

                                See response 8.

                                See response 9.

                       See response 10. See response 11.

               Page 25 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 12.

               Page 26 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 13.

                       See response 14. See response 15.

                                See response 16.

               Page 27 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 17.

               Page 28 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                                See response 18.

               Page 29 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

See response 19.

See response 20. See response 21. See response 22.

See response 23.

               Page 30 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

               Page 31 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

         Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

GAO's Response to 	In general, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights'
comments on our findings make four broad assertions in addition to having
numerous

Comments 	specific points of disagreement with our findings. We address
both in the following sections.

    Response to Broad Assertions in Commission's Comments

The four broad assertions in the Commission's comments on our draft
report, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarized
below.

o  	The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within
an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to conduct
thorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report. We disagree
strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped, designed, and
conducted this engagement in accordance with applicable professional
standards and our quality assurance requirements. To further ensure the
quality of our work, we included an initial design period, in which we
built upon our considerable knowledge of the Commission from previous GAO
reports and obtained further information as needed. In designing and
conducting our work, we also consulted with our internal experts on GPRA
and other issues. Far from rushing through the engagement, we in fact
extended our design period so that we could perform high-quality work
within a timeframe useful to our congressional requesters. At the end of
this design period in July, we narrowed our scope, deferring a potential
objective on the organizational structure of the Commission. Refining the
scope of an engagement following a design phase is not an unusual audit
practice. By agreement with our requesters, we did not include work on the
Commission's organizational structure not because of any arbitrary
decision, as the Commission alleges, but rather to enable us to complete
our work on time and in accordance with our quality standards. Our focus
on GPRA, oversight, and the Commission's response to our October 2003
report recommendations remained consistent throughout the assignment, from
initial notification to report drafting. Furthermore, in our May 2004
entrance conference with the agency, we noted our focus on these areas,
and in July 2004, at the end of our design phase, we shared these
objectives and our approach with Commission staff in an interview.

o  	The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff as
needed to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us to
interview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course of our
work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzing Commission
documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and

               Page 32 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

various reports by OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of our project,
we envisioned interviewing key managers and all of the Commissioners as
part of possible work on the Commission's organizational structure, these
interviews became unnecessary when we decided to focus on the Commission's
GPRA plans and reports, oversight of the Commission, and the agency's
response to our previous report recommendations. As noted in our report,
to obtain information for these objectives, we conducted interviews with
the Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human
Resources Director, and Budget Chief. We also followed up with emails and
telephone calls as needed. Finally, in our exit conference, we presented
all of our findings and provided an opportunity for Commission staff to
comment on our findings and provide technical corrections. At that
meeting, Commission officials provided a few comments, but no technical
corrections; with few exceptions, they did not disagree with the facts or
conclusions we presented.1

o  	The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all
times. However, while our working relationships were professional and
Commission officials were usually responsive in providing documents as
requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fully with us
throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with the Commission and key
staff was frequently difficult, with each one requiring a minimum of 3
weeks to schedule. For example, although we notified the Commission on
April 19, 2004, about our planned work and called shortly thereafter to
schedule an initial meeting, it took numerous calls to set up our entrance
conference on May 20, 2004. This delay in scheduling the initial meeting
occurred despite our reference to the need for a rapid response. In
addition, since it was difficult for Commission officials to find the time
to meet with us, we combined our entrance conference with that of another
GAO team that was examining the Commission's financial transactions so
that they would not also experience a delay in starting their work. We had
similar difficulties scheduling other meetings as well.

o  	The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency, with
a budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staff- information
that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the

1About 10 days after our exit conference, we received a faxed letter from
the Special Assistant to the Staff Director in which he disagreed with our
findings on GPRA. However, the letter did not provide any new information
on the Commission's compliance with GPRA requirements.

Page 33 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Appendix I: Comments from the
                        U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnel
processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The
Commission also cited its size in asserting that it would be an "extreme"
challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations. We disagree with
these assertions. The Commission's size is not relevant here: Size does
not mitigate the need for the Commission to address longstanding
management and human capital problems identified in previous OPM and GAO
reports. Furthermore, the Commission could make use of GPRA's planning and
reporting framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the
Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and sharpen its
goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources needed to achieve
those goals, and improve its management and human capital practices, as
recommended. The Commission could then also use GPRA's reporting framework
to demonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving those goals.

Response to Specific In addition to making these broad comments, the
Commission disagreed Comments from the with our findings more
specifically. Our detailed responses to the Commission Commission's
comments follow.

1.

2.

3.

We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was "engaged in
implementing" all of the recommendations in our October 2003 report. See
responses 2 through 6.

Although the Commission reported that it has taken various steps to meet
the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the act, we
disagree that it is in a position to meet the act's requirements for
financial statement preparation and audit this year. As of September 16,
2004, the Commission had not hired an independent auditor to conduct this
work. The agency's ability to meet the act's requirements in the less than
2 remaining months is highly doubtful, since the agency has not had its
fiscal activities independently audited in more than 12 years, and no
audit work has begun.

The Commission's assertion is not accurate: The Commission has not
implemented our recommendation to provide for increased commissioner
involvement in project implementation and report preparation. In fact, as
the Commission noted in its comments, the Commission has "continued to
follow longstanding Commission policy on Commissioner-staff interaction."
As we reported in

               Page 34 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

October 2003, this policy does not provide for systematic Commissioner
input throughout projects. Nothing precludes the Staff Director from
providing additional information about projects and report status to
Commissioners as a matter of good project management and quality
assurance. Furthermore, the Staff Director could respond in various ways
to Commissioners' concerns for increased input without obtaining a formal
vote to change the Commission's procedures. For example, Commissioners
could receive a summary of preliminary facts and findings or an outline of
a planned report.

4. 	The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that the
Commissioners' judgment must be substituted with our judgment on policy
decision matters. While our recommendations are not requirements, we
provide recommendations in our reports in accordance with our statutory
responsibilities to investigate the use of public money, analyze agency
expenditures, and evaluate the results of federal programs and activities.
Our reports and recommendations provide agencies with the information
necessary to improve their mission performance and Congress with the
information necessary for oversight, including the development of
legislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As the
administrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director is authorized to
make administrative changes that are consistent with the law and
Commission policies. While it may be difficult at times to distinguish
between an administrative and policy matter, we are not aware of any
Commission policies that would prevent the Staff Director from
implementing our recommendations nor would it be contrary to the law.

5. 	The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissioners with
project cost information and made efforts to monitor the adequacy and
timeliness of the information given, as recommended in our October 2003
report. According to Commission staff, the agency provides cost
information on a quarterly basis to Commissioners and has done so since
the last quarter of fiscal year 2003.2 However, we continue to believe
that having regular project cost reports, such as monthly reports, would
enhance the

2In April 2003, the Commissioners passed a motion to receive quarterly
cost information on its projects, by project and by office.

               Page 35 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

Commissioners' ability to plan for and monitor projects during their
monthly meetings. Monthly reports would allow greater accountability for
the projects by integrating cost information in a timely manner into
project management. Since the Commission's Budget Chief told us that he
prepares monthly project cost reports for the Staff Director, preparing
reports for the Commissioners' monthly meetings should not be unduly
burdensome. To ensure that cost reports can be best used to strengthen
project monitoring and management, these reports should also be provided
to Commissioners shortly after the month ends.

6. 	We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to provide
quarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarter has
ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for the Commission to
monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided
to Commissioners. In our view, information provided in 3-month-old project
cost reports cannot be considered timely.

7. 	We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omit
mention of the status of planned projects. The Commission's second quarter
2004 cost report for the Commissioners did not indicate the status of 4 of
the 12 projects. To be useful for decision making and monitoring, the
project cost report should have noted that some planned projects had
already been completed and that some work had not yet begun, so that the
Commissioners monitoring the projects would have also been aware of the
status of these projects.

8. 	We disagree that our conclusions on the Commission's response to OPM's
1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. See responses 9
through 16 as well as our response to broad assertions in the Commission's
comments.

9. 	The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns about its
implementation of OPM's 1999 recommendations until officials received the
draft report. However, it is not clear to us why Commission officials
should have been unaware of the direction of our findings. Four Commission
officials, including the Human Resources Director, participated in two
major meetings, one of which focused extensively on the Commission's
actions in response to six of OPM's human resources recommendations. The
Human Resources Director also participated in our exit conference

               Page 36 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

in which we summarized our findings, including our finding on the
Commission's responses to oversight by OPM. We noted explicitly during
this meeting that we had focused on certain recommendations and had found
that the actions taken by the Commission were limited. The Human Resources
Director did not provide any corrections or technical comments on the
agency's human resources practices during this meeting, nor did any other
Commission official. In addition to these meetings, we obtained additional
documents, comments, and answers to questions by e-mail from the
Commission during the course of our work and incorporated this information
into our draft report as appropriate.

10. The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it complied with
11 of OPM's 1999 recommendations. This statement is incorrect. We selected
6 of OPM's 16 recommendations for analysis; we did not analyze the
Commission's response to the remaining recommendations. We noted in our
report that the Commission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations that
we analyzed. We have clarified our methodology in the final report. See
comment 11 for more information on our methodology.

11. The Commission asserted that we arbitrarily decided to focus on 6 of
the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We strongly disagree. To follow
up on the Commission's response to OPM's recommendations, we judgmentally
selected six recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications
for the agency. At no point, however, did we pre-select these
recommendations in order to emphasize a particular outcome or "cast the
agency in a bad light." We have clarified the basis for our selection of
these recommendations in the final report.

12. We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPM's
recommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPM's report stated
that "the Staff Director retains final approving authority for most [human
resources] decisions, including appointments, promotions, and performance
ratings." Policies described in OPM's 1999 report remain in place at the
Commission today. For example, in our interviews this year, Commission
officials told us that the Staff Director must approve all hiring and
promotion decisions as well as managers' evaluations of employees. As of
February 2004, according to the Commission's administrative manual, "the
staff director retains approval authority" as well for quality step
increases, accomplishment

               Page 37 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

awards, performance awards for its employees, and recommendations to OPM
for other awards. While the Commission has taken certain actions to
improve its human resources management practices, such as developing an
employee handbook on human resources matters and providing managers with
OPM's HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commission has not
delegated human resource authorities to managers in all program areas, as
OPM had recommended.

13. The Commission's assertion that it was acting in accordance with Merit
System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this
discussion. OPM's recommendation for an accountability system stemmed from
its analysis of the Commission's human resource accountability and
internal self-assessment efforts (an area of weakness also identified in
its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not
"developed an effective system to hold managers accountable for
HRM-related decisions." OPM further noted that the "Staff Director retains
final approving authority for most [human resource] decisions... leaving
managers uncertain about their own accountability when making these HRM
decisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, saying that
the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they are unsure of
where work assignments and agency work priorities originate. Also,
employees report that their jobs do not make good use of their skills and
abilities; that they are not satisfied with their jobs; and that they do
not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, and abuse without fear of
reprisal." OPM noted that an internal selfassessment program was "urgently
needed to assure accountability." References to the Commission's delegated
examining authority and general compliance with OPM's Merit System
Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led to this
recommendation.

14. The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM "may have made a
recommendation for additional improvement of the Commission's personnel
processes." As we noted in our report, OPM made 16 recommendations for
improvement of the Commission's human resource management practices in its
1999 report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that OPM found
that "those basic [personnel] processes were already sound," and that
"there was no real need to implement this recommendation [on using OPM's
HRM Accountability System Guide], since Commission operations were good."
This is an

               Page 38 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

inaccurate reading of OPM's 1999 findings and recommendations. While OPM
found overall that the Commission's human resource program complied with
the Merit System Principles, OPM also urged the Commission to consider its
recommendations in five broad areas of human resource management. In the
executive summary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets highlighting
OPM's findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier 1996 report on
the Commission; acknowledges that the Commission "has improved its
administration of the HRM program, particularly in the recruitment and
placement area"; and continues by saying, "However, the other concerns we
identified in 1996 continue to require attention." [Italics ours.] Of the
11 remaining bulleted findings in OPM's summary, 7 describe problem areas,
3 are positive, and 1 is mixed.

15. The Commission asserts that using OPM's guide instead of designing its
own system is appropriate because it is a small agency. However, the
Commission's assertions reflect a misunderstanding of OPM's guidance to
agencies and of what constitutes an accountability system for human
resources. According to OPM, an HRM accountability system is a process and
should be seen as a continuous cycle. This systemic, continuous process
"enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the information or data
on which accountability is ultimately based." It includes identifying the
agency's strategic goals, including human resource goals; developing
performance measures and a baseline to assess whether human resource goals
are being met; and using this information to make improvements. The
accountability process also requires cyclical, periodic reassessment. The
Commission has taken various actions to improve its human resources
management, including updating several administrative instructions,
conducting an employee survey in fiscal year 2000, and developing an
employee handbook. However, the Commission has not developed an
accountability system-an ongoing process involving goal setting,
evaluation, improvements, and reassessment-to address the concerns raised
in OPM's report.

16. We cannot agree that goals established in 1997 address and implement
OPM's 1999 recommendation, nor do we agree that our referring to the
Commission's strategic plan in this discussion is unfair. The Commission's
strategic plan was developed in 1997 and remains the Commission's only
strategic plan. In 1999, OPM recommended that the Commission's strategic
plan include human

               Page 39 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

resources elements that OPM did not find in the Commission's 1997 plan. In
examining goal six in the Commission's 1997 strategic plan, OPM "did not
find that a link between HRM and agency mission accomplishment has been
made apparent in the Strategic Plan. Further, the Strategic Plan does not
list specific HRM goals and measures that could be used to assess the HRM
function's ability to effectively and efficiently support agency mission
accomplishment. We found no evidence that key measures and/or outcome
indicators are used by [the Commission] to track its efforts to achieve
HRM goals." The Commission's assertion that the 1997 strategic plan
contains human resources goals, measures, and indicators is therefore
neither accurate nor relevant: The 1997 plan does not include human
resources measures and indicators and it was not part of the Commission's
response to OPM's recommendation because it was developed 2 years before
OPM made this recommendation.

17. The Commission's statement that we examined its GPRA processes is
incorrect, and its description of the processes it used in 1997 to develop
its strategic plan and first performance plan and report are irrelevant.
Our objective was to assess the Commission's compliance with GPRA's
requirements for agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and
annual performance reports. We did not focus on the agency's process for
developing these GPRA plans and reports, nor did we analyze the
Commission's initial performance plan for fiscal year 1999 or its initial
performance report for fiscal year 1999. As noted in our report, we
analyzed the Commission's most recent performance plan (for fiscal year
2005) and the most recent performance report (for fiscal year 2003). We
also compared the Commission's plan for fiscal year 2003 to its
performance report for the same year.

18. The Commission is incorrect in asserting that its descriptions of
completed studies in its performance report provide information equivalent
to performance indicators and that its plans and reports, by implication,
comply with GPRA standards. Under GPRA, a performance indicator means a
particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome. A
narrative description of a report's findings cannot be used for
measurement purposes. See comment 19 as well.

19. The assertion that the Commission can use non-quantifiable measures in
its reports is misleading. GPRA allows the Director of

               Page 40 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

OMB to authorize the use of alternative, nonquantifiable performance goals
for annual performance plans if necessary. However, Commission officials
explicitly told us that the agency did not apply for or receive
authorization from OMB to submit goals in their annual performance plan in
an alternative, nonquantifiable format. Agencies that are authorized to
use alternative formats must comply with certain other requirements, which
the Commission has not done.

20. The Commission has not received an exemption from GPRA reporting
requirements. Although agencies with annual outlays of $20 million or less
are eligible to apply to OMB for an exemption, as the Commission notes,
Commission officials told us that the agency has not applied for nor
received such an exemption.

21. Although the Commission has filed annual performance plans and annual
reports each year, as required under GPRA, it has not revised and updated
its strategic plan, which is also required under GPRA. Furthermore, we
cannot agree that the Commission's plans and reports comply with "material
requirements" of GPRA because of the numerous shortcomings in these
products, as described in our report.

22. As noted in our report, according to OMB officials, OMB conducts
primarily budgetary reviews and does not provide agencies that have small
budgets and staff, such as the Commission, with the same level of scrutiny
that it provides to larger agencies. OMB officials further told us that
OMB does not approve or reject agencies' GPRA plans and reports, but
provides comments as appropriate. Because of OMB's focus on budgetary
reviews and on larger agencies, the absence of criticism from OMB does not
necessarily constitute approval of an agency's GPRA plans and reports.

23. Contrary to the Commission's assertion, GPRA does require agencies to
update and revise its strategic plan at least every 3 years. [Italics
ours.] The Commission has not updated and revised its strategic plan since
1997 when it should have done so in fiscal year 2000 and again in fiscal
year 2003. The Commission further asserts that its 1997 plan does not need
updating or revision because its authorizing statute has not changed in
the interim. This assumption is incorrect and demonstrates a
misunderstanding of GPRA's purposes and requirements. As noted in our
report,

               Page 41 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

strategic planning is not a static or occasional event. If done well, it
is dynamic, continuous, and results-oriented, and it provides the
foundation for everything the organization does.

               Page 42 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's Response

Of the 16 recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
made to the Commission in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6 recommendations
that had broader, more systemic implications for the agency. We did not
analyze the Commission's response to the 10 remaining recommendations.

OPM Recommendation: Include human resources goals, measures, and
indicators in the Commission's Strategic Plan and involve Commission staff
in the human resource planning and measurement process.

The Commission has not addressed this recommendation. Because the
Commission has not updated its strategic plan, it has not included
additional human capital goals and assessment measures. In addition,
although the Commission issued a Human Resources Plan in fiscal year 2000
that contains five human capital performance goals, the plan does not link
these goals to its overall strategic goals, set forth a timeframe for
achieving them, or describe how it will assess its progress.1 The plan
also does not describe how Commission staff will participate in human
resource planning and evaluation, as OPM recommended.

OPM Recommendation: Use OPM's Human Resource Management Accountability
System Development Guide as a framework for creating an accountability
system that will ensure that the Commission's employees are used
efficiently and effectively and that personnel actions are taken in
accordance with Merit Systems Principles in support of agency mission
accomplishment.

Although Commission officials reported that they have developed and
implemented an accountability system, we found little evidence to support
this claim. OPM recommended that the Commission use its Human Resource
Management Accountability System Development Guide as a

1The performance goals in the Commission's fiscal year 2000 Human
Resources Plan were (1) refine performance measurement systems to
establish usable measures, (2) provide all employees with training
opportunities to improve their job skills, (3) ensure that the Commission
workforce reflects the diversity of their clientele, (4) make
family-friendly programs that can complement the Commission, and (5)
provide all Commission employees access to the Internet.

               Page 43 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response

framework for creating an accountability system.2 The Commission's fiscal
year 2000 annual performance report noted that their managers were
provided copies of the Accountability Guide for review and that the
Commission planned to adopt or modify some of its procedures and
recommendations. According to Commission officials, they used the
Accountability Guide to develop a system similar to the one OPM outlines
in its guide. They also told us that Commission managers were presented
with a copy of the Accountability Guide and that their employees are aware
of the system. According to the Commission's Human Resources Manager, the
accountability system the agency developed in response to OPM's
recommendation is in the Commission's Administrative Instructions Manual
and its fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan. The Commission has taken
various actions to improve its human resources management since OPM's 1999
review, such as conducting an employee survey in fiscal year 2000 and
developing an employee handbook. Although the Commission has also updated
several key sections of its administrative manual, most of the manual was
published in April 1999, before OPM issued its report. Furthermore, the
Commission's most recent annual performance plan does not refer to a human
capital accountability system, nor does it detail human capital goals or
baselines to use in evaluating such goals.

OPM Recommendation: Delegate human resources management authorities to
managers in all program areas. Hold managers accountable for exercising
the delegations through the Human Resources Management Accountability
System.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. Overall, the Staff
Director's authority for most human resources decisions remains

2OPM's Accountability Guide, issued in 1998, describes a model for
establishing and maintaining an HRM accountability system within an
organization, with particular emphasis of human resource goals and
measures in support of an agency's mission. According to the
Accountability Guide, human resources management accountability starts
with identifying the agency's strategic goals. The agency should then
develop human resources goals in support of these goals. From there,
performance measures should be developed and a baseline established to
permit assessment of whether the goals are being met. According to OPM, an
HRM accountability system should be seen as a continuous, systemic,
process that "enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the
information or data on which accountability is ultimately based."

               Page 44 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response

essentially the same as in OPM's 1999 report findings.3 According to
Commission officials, managers can recommend employees for hire,
promotion, and awards and conduct annual and mid-year reviews of their
staff. However, the Staff Director must approve all hiring and promotion
decisions as well as managers' evaluations of employees before appraisals
are given to employees.

OPM Recommendation: Develop a system for periodically collecting employee
feedback regarding human resources services and policies. Incorporate that
feedback in the Human Resources Management Accountability System.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. To date, the
Commission has not developed a formal system to regularly collect employee
feedback about its human capital services and policies, even though a
similar recommendation to obtain customer feedback and track customer
views was also made in OPM's earlier 1996 review.4 In fiscal year 2000,
the Commission administered a staff survey on human resources and other
Commission issues. According to officials, the Commission plans to
administer another staff survey in the fall of 2004. However, the
Commission has not developed plans to survey staff on a regular basis. In
addition, since the Commission was unable to locate the results of its
2000 survey, its managers cannot use earlier human capital findings to
systematically set goals and make improvements. According to OPM
officials, OPM will conduct a Web-based Human Capital Survey of Commission
staff beginning in September or October of 2004.

OPM Recommendation: Require that all managers make progress reviews and
performance appraisals in a timely manner when the Human Resources
Division notifies them they are due, and require that the Staff Director
review appraisals when they are made without delay.

3In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not yet developed an effective
system for holding managers accountable for HRM decisions. OPM's report
stated that "the Staff Director retains final approval authority for most
human resources decisions, including appointments, promotions, and
performance ratings, leaving managers uncertain about their own
accountability when making human resources management decisions."

4In 1996, OPM's review called for the Commission to "establish a
self-assessment program to include a review of program compliance and
customer feedback on the quality of services provided. In particular, the
personnel office should track customer views on the timeliness and
accuracy of services provided."

               Page 45 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response

The Commission has implemented this recommendation, which was also made in
OPM's 1996 review.5 According to the Commission's Human Resources
Director, the agency is on schedule for its fiscal year 2004 performance
appraisals. Commission guidance on the 2004 performance appraisal cycle
requires Commission supervisors and managers to conduct annual and
mid-year performance reviews of their staff. For non-Senior Executive
Service employees, the process is outlined in a memorandum that the Human
Resources Director sends annually to Commission supervisors and managers.

OPM Recommendation: With employee involvement, consider developing a new
performance management system linked to organizational and agency goals
established under the Commission's Strategic Plan.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. The Commission's
performance management system is described in its Administrative
Instructions Manual, most of which was issued in April 1999-6 months
before OPM issued the recommendations in its October 1999 report. The
Administrative Instructions do not clearly require that employees'
performance plans link individual staff goals to broader strategic goals.
The parts of the manual that set forth the Commission's policies and
procedures on appraisals make no reference to the Commission's strategic
plan, nor does it specify how to link individual staff goals to the
Commission's strategic goals or how to involve employees in this process.

5In 1996, OPM made several recommendations on the Commission's performance
management, noting in particular that the Commission should "monitor
whether managers are conducting progress reviews," and "create a more
timely process for handling performance appraisal ratings."

               Page 46 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix III: GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's Response

GAO Recommendation: Monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost
information that the Staff Director provides to Commissioners and make the
necessary adjustments, which could include providing information on a
monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis and as necessary.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In our 2003
review, we found that the Commission's procedures did not provide for the
Commissioners to systematically receive project cost information-a key
element of good project management. As a result, the Commissioners
approved the majority of projects and products each year without having
any specific information on how much the project would cost, or how much
similar projects have cost in past years.

In the Commission's June 2004 letter responding to our 2003
recommendations, the Staff Director stated that this recommendation spoke
to "Commission policy on the proper level and mode of interaction between
the Commissioners and staff ... [and that] the Commissioners have
reaffirmed on numerous occasions the current policy regarding interaction
with staff." He added that the Commission "is continuing to monitor the
adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided to
Commissioners."

According to the Staff Director, his office provides the Commissioners
with cost information for each project and office on a quarterly basis,
and they began doing so during the last quarter of 2003. However, the cost
report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, ending March 31, was
not sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004, and was sent in
response to requests from the Commissioners for this information. It is
also not clear that the Commission is monitoring the adequacy and
timeliness of project cost information, as recommended. For example, the
quarterly report for the second quarter of 2004 cites costs for only 8 of
the 12 projects outlined in the Commission's fiscal year 2004 performance
plan.

GAO Recommendation: Adopt procedures that provide for increased
Commissioner involvement in project implementation and report preparation.

The Staff Director does not agree with this recommendation and has not
implemented it. In our 2003 review, we found that Commissioners have
limited involvement in the management of projects once they have been
approved. As a result, we recommended that the Commission adopt procedures
for increasing Commissioner involvement after project

               Page 47 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix III: GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's
Response

implementation by providing them with project updates and allowing them to
review the product at various stages in the drafting process, so that they
participate more actively in shaping products released to the public.

The Staff Director did not agree with this recommendation and told us that
he believes that the current procedures that govern Commissioner
involvement in the development of products are appropriate and efficient.
In his June 2004 letter responding to our recommendations, the Staff
Director wrote that the responsibility for determining policy on
Commissioners' interaction with the staff is "delegated by statute to the
Commissioners." According to the Staff Director, the Commissioners
requested that he assess the situation and issue recommendations on their
involvement in report preparation. The Staff Director said that involving
the Commissioners in the writing stage would "bog down" the process and
that it would be difficult to incorporate the viewpoints of the eight
Commissioners. To date, the Commission has not adopted any procedures to
increase Commissioner involvement in the report preparation stage.

GAO Recommendation: Establish greater controls over contracting activities
in order to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Although the Staff Director disagreed with this recommendation, the
Commission took one step towards establishing greater controls by
contracting with a contracts and procurement specialist to supplement its
operations. In 2003, we reported that the Commission lacked sufficient
management controls over its contracting procedures. We found that, in
fiscal year 2002, the Commission had not followed proper federal
procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. Moreover, we found that
the Commission failed to follow procedures that would allow it to track
vendors' performance against objective measures and ensure that public
funds are being used effectively.

While the Staff Director disagreed in his June 2004 response letter with
the need for the actions associated with this recommendation, he later
told us that the Commission "could be stronger" in the area of
procurement. Since our 2003 report was issued, the Commission has
supplemented its contracts and procurements operations by contracting with
a contracts and procurements specialist with over 30 years of experience
in government contracting. According to Commission officials, this
specialist began providing services to the Commission in December 2003 and
generally addresses complex procurement issues.

               Page 48 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix III: GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's
Response

GAO Recommendation: Take steps immediately in order to meet the financial
statement preparation and audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax
Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In 2003, we found
that the Commission's fiscal activities had not been independently audited
in at least 12 years. We concluded that the Commission's limited financial
management controls and lack of external oversight makes the Commission
vulnerable to resource losses due to waste, mismanagement, or abuse.

Although in the June 2004 response, the Commission reported working with
its accounting vendor to ensure that it would meet these requirements, as
of August 2004, the Commission had not taken the necessary steps, such as
hiring an independent auditor, to ensure that it will meet the
requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act this year.

               Page 49 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

  Staff Acknowledgments

(130373)

Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-3863 Deborah A. Signer, (202) 512-7158

Friendly M. VangJohnson and Caroline Sallee made significant contributions
to this report. In addition, Richard P. Burkard, Elizabeth H. Curda,
Julian P. Klazkin, Benjamin T. Licht, Corinna Nicolaou, and Michael R.
Volpe provided key technical and legal assistance throughout the
engagement.

Page 50 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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 posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

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

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***