Office of Special Counsel Needs to Follow Structured Life Cycle  
Management Practices for Its Case Tracking System (16-FEB-07,	 
GAO-07-318R).							 
                                                                 
The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is charged with safeguarding 
the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants  
for employment from prohibited personnel practices, such as	 
discrimination, nepotism, and retaliation against whistleblowing.
An individual who feels that a prohibited personnel practice has 
occurred may file a claim with OSC, which OSC then investigates  
and on which it may seek corrective or disciplinary action	 
through negotiation with agencies or prosecution of claims before
the Merit Systems Protection Board. In addition, federal	 
employees, former federal employees, and applicants for federal  
employment may also disclose to OSC alleged wrongdoing by federal
employees (termed whistleblower disclosures), including 	 
violations of law, gross mismanagement, or abuse of authority.	 
OSC also provides advisory opinions and enforces Hatch Act	 
restrictions on the political activities of individuals employed 
by the federal and District of Columbia governments as well as	 
certain state and local government employees in connection with  
programs financed by federal funds. OSC also prosecutes claims	 
before the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of federal	 
employees, former federal employees, and applicants for federal  
employment under the Uniformed Services Employment and		 
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which protects the	 
employment and reemployment rights of federal and nonfederal	 
employees who leave their employment to perform military service 
and prohibits discrimination against individuals because of their
military service. OSC reports annually to Congress on the number 
of all types of cases it receives, processes, and closes as well 
as the disposition of those cases. cases. In the course of two	 
prior reviews at OSC, we found discrepancies in the data	 
generated by OSC's case tracking system--OSC 2000--in the number 
of cases pending at the beginning of a fiscal year as well as	 
cases received and closed during the year. This report responds  
to Congress's concerns about the possibility that the data in OSC
2000 may be unreliable and that in turn OSC data on caseloads may
be in error. As discussed, our objectives were to (1) identify	 
what actions OSC has taken to help ensure the reliability of its 
case tracking system and related data and (2) determine whether  
OSC has corrected the types of data discrepancies we identified  
during previous work.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-318R					        
    ACCNO:   A66008						        
  TITLE:     Office of Special Counsel Needs to Follow Structured Life
Cycle Management Practices for Its Case Tracking System 	 
     DATE:   02/16/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Employment discrimination				 
	     Federal employees					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Program abuses					 
	     Safeguards 					 
	     Systems development life cycle			 
	     Whistleblowers					 
	     Corrective action					 
	     Merit systems					 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-318R

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]OSC Reports Taking Actions to Help Ensure the Reliability of

          * [4]Actions OSC Officials Reported Taking to Ensure Reliable, Ac
          * [5]OSC Could Not Provide Documentation to Verify the Actions It
          * [6]OSC Could Not Provide Requirements for Ensuring Data Quality

     * [7]Selected OSC 2000 Data Are Sufficiently Reliable for Reporti

          * [8]OSC Data on Number of Cases Received and Closed by Case Type
          * [9]OSC Continues to Have Small Data Discrepancies Similar to Th

     * [10]Conclusion
     * [11]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [12]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [13]Actions OSC Has Taken to Help Ensure the Reliability of Its
     * [14]Determination of Whether OSC Has Corrected the Types of Data

          * [15]Comparison of Electronic Data to the Source Case Files
          * [16]Data Elements Reviewed in USERRA Cases
          * [17]Non-USERRA Data Elements Reviewed

     * [18]GAO Contact
     * [19]Staff Acknowledgements
     * [20]GAO's Mission
     * [21]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [22]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [23]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [24]Congressional Relations
     * [25]Public Affairs

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 16, 2007

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

The Honorable Barney Frank
House of Representatives

Subject: Office of Special Counsel Needs to Follow Structured Life Cycle
Management Practices for Its Case Tracking System

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is charged with safeguarding the merit
system by protecting federal employees and applicants for employment from
prohibited personnel practices, such as discrimination, nepotism, and
retaliation against whistleblowing.^1 An individual who feels that a
prohibited personnel practice has occurred may file a claim with OSC,
which OSC then investigates and on which it may seek corrective or
disciplinary action through negotiation with agencies or prosecution of
claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board.^2 In addition, federal
employees, former federal employees, and applicants for federal employment
may also disclose to OSC alleged wrongdoing by federal employees (termed
whistleblower disclosures), including violations of law, gross
mismanagement, or abuse of authority.^3 OSC also provides advisory
opinions and enforces Hatch Act restrictions on the political activities
of individuals employed by the federal and District of Columbia
governments as well as certain state and local government employees in
connection with programs financed by federal funds. OSC also prosecutes
claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of federal
employees, former federal employees, and applicants for federal employment
under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of
1994 (USERRA), which protects the employment and reemployment rights of
federal and nonfederal employees who leave their employment to perform
military service and prohibits discrimination against individuals because
of their military service.^4 OSC reports annually to Congress on the
number of all types of cases it receives, processes, and closes as well as
the disposition of those cases.

^1Prohibited personnel practices are specified in 5 U.S.C. S 2302(b).

^2An independent, quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch, the Merit
Systems Protection Board serves as the guardian of federal merit
principles.

^3Reprisal for whistleblower disclosure is a prohibited personnel
practice.

In the course of two prior reviews at OSC,^5 we found discrepancies in the
data generated by OSC's case tracking system--OSC 2000--in the number of
cases pending at the beginning of a fiscal year as well as cases received
and closed during the year. This report responds to your concerns about
the possibility that the data in OSC 2000 may be unreliable and that in
turn OSC data on caseloads may be in error. As discussed, our objectives
were to (1) identify what actions OSC has taken to help ensure the
reliability of its case tracking system and related data and (2) determine
whether OSC has corrected the types of data discrepancies we identified
during previous work.

To identify what actions OSC has taken to help ensure the reliability of
its case tracking system and related data, we reviewed existing
documentation on OSC 2000, interviewed knowledgeable OSC officials, and
reviewed federal guidance from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Office of Management and Budget circulars, and guidance from
leading information technology organizations. To determine whether OSC has
corrected the types of data discrepancies we identified during previous
work, we reviewed reports generated by OSC 2000 on the inventory of cases
and interviewed knowledgeable OSC officials. Additionally, we selected a
random sample of 160 cases from the 3,604 closed cases OSC received from
October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2006.^6 Using these cases, we traced
electronic data for selected data elements to the source case files to
determine the reliability of the data. Our sample was divided into USERRA
and non-USRERRA cases as we are doing additional work on the agency's
USERRA activities.^7 We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April
2006 through December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Detailed information on our scope and
methodology appears in enclosure I.

^4Pub. L. No. 103-353, 108 Stat. 3149, as amended, codified at 38 U.S.C.
SS 4301-4333.

^5GAO, U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Strategy for Reducing Persistent
Backlog of Cases Should Be Provided to Congress, [26]GAO-04-36
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2004), and U.S. Office of Special Counsel's
Role in Enforcing Law to Protect Reemployment Rights of Veterans and
Reservists in Federal Employment, [27]GAO-05-74R (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
6, 2004).

^6This period covers the time since we last reviewed the reliability of
computer-generated data at OSC.

Results in Brief

Although OSC officials described actions that they said had been taken to
help ensure the reliability of OSC 2000 and its related data, they did not
provide us with sufficient documentation to demonstrate that fundamental
system controls and safeguards are in place and operating as intended. The
absence of this documentation can be attributed to OSC's failure to follow
a structured system development life cycle approach for OSC 2000--an
approach in which system requirements are documented, along with tests of
and changes to the system. Failure to follow a structured system
development life cycle approach for OSC 2000 is contrary to recognized
system development life cycle management practices and increases the risk
that the system will not function as intended. Controlling risks in areas
such as information security is especially important to protect the
personal information of complainants from inadvertent or deliberate
misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, corruption, or destruction.

In comparing electronic data in OSC 2000 to the source case files for 158
randomly selected cases, we found that the three data elements used in
OSC's annual reports to Congress--date received, date closed, and case
type--are sufficiently reliable for reporting purposes but that OSC
continues to have small discrepancies in summary data provided to us
similar to those previously identified during our work in 2004. These
variances in the summary data are primarily caused by inconsistent queries
to OSC 2000 and appear to be within OSC's acceptable error rate, which
officials have stated is + 3 percent. However, any untested data elements
in OSC 2000 may be in doubt because of OSC's failure to follow structured
system life cycle management practices.

We recommend in this report that OSC develop a system development life
cycle approach, ensure that such an approach is fully implemented before
making additional system changes, and develop consistent system queries.
We provided a copy of this report to the Special Counsel for comment. In
his comments, the Special Counsel generally concurred with our
recommendations. Notwithstanding this concurrence, the Special Counsel
disagreed with our finding that OSC had not followed a system development
life cycle approach. However, OSC provided no documentation so that we
could verify the actions that the Special Counsel described OSC taking.
Thus, we made no changes to our recommendation.

^7We removed two cases from our analysis because they involved employees
who are not covered by USERRA.

Background

According to OSC officials, OSC 2000 was first conceptualized in 1992 to
replace OSC's aging case tracking system with a system that utilized the
latest client/server relational database architecture. After awarding a
contract for the design, development, and deployment of the new case
tracking system, OSC decided to terminate the contract because of
nonperformance. OSC's in-house information technology staff subsequently
completed the OSC 2000 project without a third-party contractor's
assistance. OSC 2000 went online in July 1999, 10 months after in-house
staff took over the project.

In our March 2004 report, U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Strategy for
Reducing Persistent Backlog of Cases Should Be Provided to Congress,^8 we
reviewed OSC's data by case type for fiscal years 1997 through 2003.
During the course of our review, we identified discrepancies, primarily in
the beginning and ending inventory of cases in data the agency provided to
us. To identify reasons for these discrepancies, we met with OSC's Chief
Information Officer (CIO), who said that the methodology used for querying
OSC 2000 had limitations, particularly in the data entry operator's use of
unreviewed and unverified ad hoc queries. To provide us with accurate
data, OSC's CIO developed a software program that offered a more reliable
and consistent approach to querying OSC's system. We tested the accuracy
and completeness of a sample of cases from OSC's system. On the basis of
the results of our tests of required data elements, we determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

In a subsequent report concerning OSC in October 2004, U.S. Office of
Special Counsel's Role in Enforcing Law to Protect Reemployment Rights of
Veterans and Reservists in Federal Employment,^9 we reviewed OSC data on
USERRA cases. During the course of our work, we learned that the number of
new USERRA cases we reported in our March 2004 report for fiscal years
2000 and 2002 had been incorrect, as had the number of new USERRA cases
reported by OSC in its annual report to Congress for those fiscal years.

^8 [28]GAO-04-36 .

OSC Reports Taking Actions to Help Ensure the Reliability of OSC 2000 and Its
Related Data but Lacks Documentation of Its Actions

Ensuring the reliability of data produced by any computer system requires
documentation and implementation of verifiable controls to ensure that
these requirements are being met. OSC officials, including the CIO,
provided several policies and described actions they had taken, including
implementing and operating system safeguards to ensure that OSC's case
tracking system produces reliable data. However, OSC could not produce
sufficient documentation to provide reasonable assurance that it had taken
actions or that verifiable controls to help ensure the reliability of data
were in place and functioning as intended.

Actions OSC Officials Reported Taking to Ensure Reliable, Accurate, and Complete
Data

According to a senior OSC official, OSC has built a number of safeguards
into OSC 2000--some that operate automatically and others that operate
manually by routine staff review--that are intended to ensure the
reliability and accuracy of the data entered into OSC 2000 as well as the
reports the system generates based on those data. For example, the
official stated that most data fields will only accept data from a
drop-down list programmed to a table for that field. Certain data fields
have restrictions on them as to what can be typed in (e.g., a date field
entry must be a valid date and not one prior to the date received). A case
cannot be closed unless all the allegations connected with that case have
been closed out. Users of the system cannot delete a case; this action can
only be taken by the System Administrator. In addition, to safeguard
against accidental deletions, allegations and certain actions cannot be
deleted from the system. According to this official, most important for
data integrity are the constraints built into the architecture of the
system that operate automatically. These include referential restrictions
(i.e., an action code cannot be entered into a case on a date before the
received date; a right-to-sue letter code can only be entered in a
reprisal case; and security restrictions are based on the identification
of the staff performing the data entry so that for example, only the
relevant supervisor can approve a corrective actions screen).

^9 [29]GAO-05-74R .

To ensure that data are entered correctly and consistently, OSC's CIO
stated that users are held accountable for the accuracy and completeness
of the data. For example, according to a data entry policy dated October
2002, all office heads are responsible for the accuracy of the data
entered for matters and cases under their supervision and are to be held
accountable when records are incomplete or inaccurate. Likewise, each
attorney must certify in writing that the computer record for a matter or
case is complete and accurate before the file can be closed. In addition,
the official stated that processing steps and standard forms are used to
ensure that data are entered into the system consistently. Concerning the
completeness of information entered into OSC 2000, the official said that
with electronic filing of complaints, more constraints are built into the
electronic forms, so that if certain critical information is missing, the
complainant cannot submit the form.^10 With paper filing, staff enter
information into OSC 2000, and if information is missing, they have to
contact the complainant.

OSC officials said that regular OSC 2000 user workgroup meetings, attended
by representatives of all OSC work units, are used as a forum for raising
and solving problems with the system as well as approving enhancements to
it. OSC's CIO said that although OSC does not have written protocols for
changes to OSC 2000, it has an established process of using the workgroup
to review, approve, and test the changes. Under this process, the CIO is
responsible for making minor changes to the system and documents those
changes in handwritten notes. The CIO said that minor changes include
adding a column or another search function. Major changes--such as the
electronic filing of complaints, the use of bar codes for documents,
changes to the data dictionary, and changes to the work flow diagram--must
be authorized by the user workgroup. The CIO said that once the workgroup
approves a major change, he will design it and return to the workgroup for
approval before making changes.^11

^10OSC accepts complaints electronically for prohibited personnel
practices (OSC Form 11) and whistleblower disclosures (OSC Form 12).

Finally, the CIO said that while there have been no problems (e.g., system
"crashes") that would affect the quality of the data to date, OSC 2000 has
both a primary and a backup system. He further stated that OSC 2000 is
backed up to a backup server twice a day, so that if the primary system
goes down, only 4 hours of work would be lost. OSC also has a tape backup
off-site, according to the CIO.

OSC Could Not Provide Documentation to Verify the Actions It Took or the
Existence of Sufficient Controls

Although OSC officials provided copies of several policies and described
actions OSC has taken to ensure the quality of the data it generates, they
did not provide sufficient documentation for us to verify the agency's
stated actions or that it had controls in place. For example, OSC did not
provide design specifications or documentation about OSC 2000's functional
requirements. Such requirements are typically contained in a formal
document that specifically describes what the system is supposed to do. As
we have previously reported,^12 this detailed documentation is important
because it is used for developing thorough test plans, maintaining the
system, and ensuring that risks associated with building and operating the
system are adequately controlled. OSC officials said that the agency does
not have documentation describing the functionality of the system.

In addition, guidance from federal agencies (e.g., the National Institute
of Standards and Technology) and leading information technology
organizations discusses the need for organizations to adopt a structured,

^11As a security control, only the CIO has the level of access necessary
to change the code in the system. To verify any changes the CIO made to
the system, the System Administrator first looked at the code to verify
that it contained no mistakes, then went into the system to verify that
the change the CIO made was present and to ensure that it worked properly.
According to an OSC official, the System Administrator verified and tested
most changes.

^12See GAO, Treasury Automation: Automated Auction System May Not Achieve
Benefits or Operate Properly, [30]GAO/IMTEC-93-28 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
27, 1993).

or System Development Life Cycle (SDLC), approach.^13 An SDLC approach
requires organizations to document the phases of the development life
cycle for automated information systems and their software applications,
including any changes that are made to the systems or their software. As
we previously reported,^14 ensuring an information system's reliability is
one reason for following an SDLC approach. Federal guidance recommending
that agencies follow best practices for automated information systems was
issued before OSC 2000 became operational in July 1999. OSC officials did
not provide documentation of an SDLC approach that would guide how OSC
2000 was defined, designed, developed, tested, implemented, and
maintained. OSC provided the CIO's handwritten notes identifying problems
fixed, generally by date (e.g., change the remarks field in the actions
table to unlimited length) as documentation of changes to the system.
According to the CIO's notes, OSC has made literally hundreds of changes
to the system. OSC officials stated that they recognized the importance of
an SDLC approach and would work on developing SDLC documentation.

Also, OSC did not provide documentation of the testing of changes to the
system. As we previously reported, it is important that testing of an
automated information system be fully documented, with traceability of
test cases to the system requirements and the acceptance criteria.^15 Such
traceability is not possible without functional requirements
documentation. Also, without documentation, which according to guidance
from a leading information technology organization should occur within the
system's architecture, the history of system changes can be lost if staff
changes occur, thus making future system modifications or problem
corrections more time-consuming and costly. Future systems modifications
are already being planned. OSC officials said that the agency plans to
convert OSC 2000 to a Web-based system but that such a conversion depends
on funding.

^13An SDLC approach generally includes the following phases: (1)
initiation (the recognition of a problem and the identification of a
need); (2) definition (the specification of functional requirements and
the start of detailed planning); (3) system design (specification of the
problem solution); (4) programming and training (the start of testing,
evaluation, certification, and installation of programs); (5) evaluation
and acceptance (the integration and testing of the system or software);
and (6) installation and operation (the implementation and operation of
the system or software, the budgeting for it, and the controlling of all
changes and the maintenance and modification of the system during its
life).

^14GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [31]GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998).

^15 [32]GAO/GGD-98-199 .

Finally, as OSC accepts some complaints electronically, information
security is an important consideration because, as we have previously
reported,^16 the same speed and accessibility that create the enormous
benefits of the computer age can, if not properly controlled, allow
individuals and groups with malicious intent to intrude into inadequately
protected systems and use this access to obtain sensitive information,
commit fraud, disrupt operations, corrupt data, or launch attacks against
other computer networks and systems. Effective information security
controls affect the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of
sensitive information--such as personal information on
complainants--maintained by OSC.^17 These controls are essential to
ensuring that information is adequately protected from inadvertent or
deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, corruption, or
destruction. OSC officials provided a security control policy dated
October 2002 from the OSC 2000 user manual that states that OSC 2000 has
five "areas of security control,"^18 which touch on security controls but
are not in and of themselves sufficient as verifiable controls. OSC's CIO
described backing up OSC 2000 to a server twice a day and having tape
backup off-site, both of which are procedures discussed in federal
guidance.^19 However, OSC did not provide documentation of detailed
information security controls or standards that we could review.

^16GAO, Information Security: Continued Progress Needed to Strengthen
Controls at the Internal Revenue Service, [33]GAO-06-328 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 23, 2006).

^17Information system general controls affect the overall effectiveness
and security of computer operations as opposed to being unique to any
specific computer application. These controls include security management,
operating procedures, software security features, and physical protections
designed to ensure that access to data is appropriately restricted, only
authorized changes to computer programs are made, incompatible
computer-related duties are segregated, and backup and recovery plans are
adequate to ensure the continuity of operations.

^18The first area describes procedures for entering data correctly and
consistently. The second states that a logon identification and password
are needed to ensure that the person who logs in has the right credentials
to use the system. The third discusses the user profile and security level
to work in conjunction with rules, constraints, and triggers. The fourth
identifies an audit trail for deleted data. The final area states that
reports allow OSC officials to verify that data are entered correctly and
completely.

^19See the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Annex 1 to its
Special Publication 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal
Information Systems: Minimum Security Controls Low Baseline (Gaithersburg,
Md.: 2005), p.13.

OSC Could Not Provide Requirements for Ensuring Data Quality

The information disseminated by federal agencies is a critical strategic
asset. Given the widespread use and impact of federal information, it is
important for it to meet basic quality standards. In response to questions
about its requirements for ensuring data quality, including the results of
any reviews of the quality of the data, OSC officials did not provide
sufficient documentation to provide us with reasonable assurance that they
had taken certain actions. OSC provided a data entry policy, dated October
2002, which we discussed earlier, that identifies OSC's policies for
ensuring that accurate and complete data are being entered into OSC 2000
and holding office heads responsible for the accuracy of the data entered
into the system. The policy, however, does not provide accompanying
procedures that identify which data elements are required to be entered
for the computer record to ensure completeness or describe who is to
conduct periodic reviews of the completeness and accuracy of the data.
Without such data quality control procedures, there is no assurance that
the data are complete and accurate or that OSC employees are being held
accountable for the policy. It also does not describe quality control
measures such as acceptable error rates or how these measures will be used
to assess the quality of the data.

Selected OSC 2000 Data Are Sufficiently Reliable for Reporting to Congress, but
OSC Continues to Have Data Discrepancies Similar to Those We Previously
Identified

Of 11 unique selected data elements reviewed,^20 3 are used in OSC's
annual reports to Congress--date received, date closed, and case type--and
are sufficiently reliable for reporting purposes. However, OSC continues
to have discrepancies in summary data provided to us similar to those
previously identified during our work in 2004. These small variances are
primarily caused by inconsistent queries to OSC 2000 and appear to be
within OSC's acceptable error rate, which officials have stated is + 3
percent.

^20We reviewed 11 out of 90 unique data elements in OSC 2000's data
dictionary: date received, date closed, case type, case subtype, agency
name, source code, action office, corrective action type, allegation, name
(complainant/subject), and personnel action. However, we did not review
each of these 11 data elements for both USERRA and non-USERRA cases; we
discuss 5 data elements that are common to both (date received, date
closed, case type, action office, and corrective action type). In
addition, we reviewed 3 data elements that were unique to either USERRA
cases (case subtype, agency name, and source code) or non-USERRA cases
(allegation, name and personnel action).

OSC Data on Number of Cases Received and Closed by Case Type Are Sufficiently
Reliable for Reporting to Congress

Three of the 11 unique selected data elements reviewed are used in OSC's
annual reports to Congress--date received, date closed, and case type--and
are sufficiently reliable for reporting purposes. Six of the other 8 data
elements we reviewed als.o were sufficiently reliable, and another is
sufficiently reliable for non-USERRA cases (i.e., those concerning
prohibited personnel practices, whistleblower disclosures, and Hatch Act
allegations).^21 Another data element, source code, which only applies to
USERRA cases, is generally unreliable as it would match in less than 7
percent of cases. We compared electronic data in OSC 2000 to the source
case files for 158 randomly selected cases received from October 1, 2004,
through March 31, 2006.^22 For the purposes of this report, we assessed
reliability by the amount of agreement between the data in OSC 2000 and
the source case files. We did not evaluate the accuracy of the source case
files for the data elements reviewed.

Our random sample for closed USERRA and non-USERRA cases was sufficient
for us to comment on the reliability of selected data elements in closed
cases in OSC 2000 (see enc. I for a discussion of our sampling
methodology).^23 We excluded cases from the original sample size (i.e., 64
USERRA and 94 non-USERRA cases) when information was missing from the case
file and prevented the comparison of data in OSC 2000 to the source case
files for a particular data element. For data elements pertaining to time
(i.e., date received and date closed for both USERRA and non-USERRA
cases), we did not include differences between the data in OSC 2000 and
the case files when they were off by 1 day; only differences of more than
1 day were included. (See enc. II for the results of our file review for
all data elements reviewed.)

For date received in USERRA cases, there is at least a 95 percent chance
that a match will occur between OSC 2000 and the case files in more than
81 percent of cases and for non-USERRA cases in more than 83 percent of
cases. For USERRA cases, date received could be verified in OSC 2000 data
for 63 cases where information was present in the case file; the average
difference between the case file and OSC 2000 was less than 1 day. Of
those 63 cases, 7 were off by more than 1 day.  Across the 94 non-USERRA
cases, the average difference between OSC 2000 and the case file in the
date received data element was about +2 days. Of those 94 cases, 10 cases
were off by more than 1 day. The small average difference in days for date
received combined with the matching rate between OSC 2000 and the case
files demonstrates sufficient data reliability for using date received to
report the number of new cases to Congress.

^21That data element, corrective action, is not sufficiently reliable for
USERRA cases (i.e., would expect a match between OSC 2000 and the case
file in more than 76 percent of cases).

^22We removed 2 cases from our analysis of 160 cases because they involved
employees not covered by USERRA.

^23Because we sampled a portion of OSC closed cases, our results are
estimates of all closed cases and are subject to sampling error. For
example, we are 95 percent confident that for USERRA cases the date closed
data element has a match rate of at least 92 percent. This one-sided
confidence interval indicates that there is at least a 95 percent chance
that a match will occur between OSC 2000 and the case files for this data
element in USERRA cases in at least 92 percent of the cases.

For date closed in USERRA cases, there is at least a 95 percent chance
that a match will occur between OSC 2000 and the case files in more than
92 percent of cases and for non-USERRA cases in more than 91 percent of
cases. For USERRA cases, date closed could be verified in OSC 2000 data
for 63 cases where information was present in the case file; the average
difference between the case file and OSC 2000 was less than 1 day. Of
those 63 cases, 1 was off by more than 1 day. For non-USERRA cases, date
closed could be verified in OSC 2000 data for 93 cases where information
was present in the case file; the average difference between OSC 2000 and
the case file was less than 1 day, and no cases were off by more than 1
day. The small average difference in days for date closed combined with
the matching rate between OSC 2000 and the case files demonstrates
sufficient data reliability for using date received to report the number
of new cases to Congress.

For case type in USERRA cases, there is at least a 95 percent chance that
a match will occur between OSC 2000 and the case files in more than 96
percent of cases and for non-USERRA cases in more than 95 percent of
cases. Case type could be verified in OSC 2000 data for all 64 USERRA
cases reviewed and for all 94 non-USERRA cases reviewed.

OSC Continues to Have Small Data Discrepancies Similar to Those We Identified in
Prior Work

As discussed earlier, we previously identified data discrepancies,
primarily in the beginning and ending inventory of cases by fiscal year
during our work for our March 2004 report.^24 According to OSC's CIO,
since our work in 2004, OSC has developed a standard structured query
language (SQL)^25 methodology as one of its management tools to query OSC
2000 for caseload information. Although we did not test the SQL code on
OSC 2000 to determine whether it worked as intended, OSC provided us with
data for the beginning and ending inventory of cases for fiscal years 2004
and 2005. These data showed (by type of case) cases pending at the
beginning of both fiscal years, cases received for both years, and cases
closed for both years. For cases concerning prohibited personnel
practices, whistleblower disclosures, and the Hatch Act, these data showed
small discrepancies between the numbers of cases as determined by the SQL
methodology and as determined by data recorded in OSC 2000.

In addition, in providing USERRA data primarily for fiscal years 2005 and
2006 for another ongoing GAO engagement, we found that when OSC queried
OSC 2000 by case identification number, which is to include the fiscal
year (e.g., "05" or "06") in which the data were entered into the system,
the result for fiscal year 2005 was 109 cases. When OSC later queried OSC
2000 by date received (i.e., "date received between 10/1/2004 and
9/30/2005"), the result for fiscal year 2005 was 111, because 2 cases that
were received near the end of the fiscal year had been entered at the
start of the new fiscal year and received case identification numbers of
"06." Thus querying by date produced a different result than querying by
case identification number, indicating a lack of standardized SQL queries.
A senior OSC official acknowledged another instance where system queries
produced different results, and OSC officials agreed that they needed to
use standardized SQL queries and said that OSC was working on correcting
the problem as part of its computer system upgrades. In these instances,
it is not clear that OSC information technology or management officials
reviewed the data for accuracy.

Conclusion

Agencies that follow structured system development life cycle practices
are able to demonstrate that fundamental system controls and safeguards
are in place and operating as intended. Because OSC has not followed such
a structured approach, the reliability of its case tracking system is in
question, and the risks increase that personal information in complaints
captured in that system could be vulnerable to inadvertent or deliberate
misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, corruption, or destruction.
Although the continued discrepancies we found in computer data generated
by OSC 2000 were within OSC's acceptable error rate, without the use of
consistent SQL queries, OSC does not have assurance that future
discrepancies will remain within the acceptable rate. As the agency is
planning future system modifications, OSC has an opportunity to implement
relevant federal guidance for information technology systems.

^24 [34]GAO-04-36 .

^25SQL is a popular computer language used to create, modify, retrieve,
and manipulate data from relational database management systems.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Special Counsel direct OSC's CIO to take the
following actions:

           o Define an SDLC approach that is consistent with relevant federal
           guidance and practices at successful information technology
           organizations, including the minimum security requirements
           outlined in National Institute of Standards and Technology
           guidance.
           o Ensure that the SDLC is fully implemented as part of any planned
           changes to or replacements for OSC 2000.
           o Develop and utilize consistent standard SQL queries for
           reporting on the inventory of cases.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We provided a draft of this report to the Special Counsel for his
           review and comment. In written comments, the Special Counsel
           stated that he fully concurred that formal systems documentation
           needs to be updated before redesigning and redeveloping OSC 2000
           to be Web enabled and to develop consistent queries to reduce data
           discrepancies. Notwithstanding this concurrence, the Special
           Counsel also stated that he disagreed with our finding that OSC
           had not followed structured life cycle management practices for
           the development of OSC 2000 and went on to describe tests that he
           said OSC had run on the system. However, OSC's inability to
           produce documentation of the phases of OSC 2000's development life
           cycle or of the testing of changes to the system precluded us from
           verifying the actions that the Special Counsel described OSC as
           having taken. It is widely understood that documentation of life
           cycle management activities is as important as the actual
           execution of those activities. Further, without such
           documentation, OSC will likely find making future system
           modifications or problem corrections more time-consuming and
           costly than it would with adequate documentation. We believe that
           the report accurately reflects what we found and were able to
           verify. As such, we continue to believe that OSC needs to define
           and document a structured life cycle management approach that
           includes the minimum requirements outlined in National Institute
           of Standards and Technology guidance. A copy of OSC's written
           response is included in enclosure III.

           We will send copies of this report to the Special Counsel,
           interested congressional committees, and other interested parties.
           Copies will be made available to others upon request. This report
           will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
           http://www.gao.gov .

           If you or your staff have questions about this report, please
           contact me on (202) 512-9490 or by e-mail at [email protected]
           . Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
           Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
           contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

           George H. Stalcup
			  Director, Strategic Issues

           Enclosures
			  
			  Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology
			  
			  Actions OSC Has Taken to Help Ensure the Reliability of Its Case
			  Tracking System and Related Data

           To identify what actions the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has
           taken to help ensure the reliability of its case tracking system
           and related data, we reviewed existing information about the data
           and the system that produced them and interviewed knowledgeable
           OSC officials, including OSC's Chief Information Officer and
           System Administrator, using GAO's standard interview questions
           related to data reliability assessments. We also reviewed prior
           GAO reports, National Institute of Standards and Technology
           guidance, Office of Management and Budget circulars, and guidance
           from leading information technology organizations.
			  
			  Determination of Whether OSC Has Corrected the Types of Data
			  Discrepancies We Identified during Previous Work

           To determine whether OSC has corrected the types of data
           discrepancies we identified during previous work, we reviewed
           relevant documentation and interviewed knowledgeable OSC
           officials. We also traced electronic data for selected data
           elements to the source case files.
			  
			  Comparison of Electronic Data to the Source Case Files

           To compare electronic data to the source case files, we first
           selected which data elements to include in our review. We selected
           the specific data elements for review by asking knowledgeable OSC
           officials to identify data elements critical for processing claims
           filed by federal employees under the Uniformed Services Employment
           and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and non-USERRA cases
           (i.e., prohibited personnel practices, whistleblower disclosures,
           and Hatch Act allegations).^1 Of the 90 unique data elements that
           appear in OSC's data dictionary,^2 we selected 11 data elements to
           review: date received, date closed, case type, case subtype,
           agency name, source code, action office, corrective action type,
           allegation, name (complainant/subject), and personnel action.

           For USERRA cases, all but one of these data elements, action
           office, was identified by OSC officials as critical to processing
           a case. For the non-USERRA data elements, because we had so few
           data elements that were considered critical for processing a case,
           we included three data elements--personnel action code, action
           office, and corrective action type--that an OSC official said were
           not necessarily comparable between the case file and OSC 2000. We
           included these three to confirm that they were not comparable
           (i.e., that we would not find them present in either the
           electronic data or the case file or both).

           We did not review each of these 11 data elements for both USERRA
           and non-USERRA cases; we reviewed 5 data elements that were common
           to both (date received, date closed, case type, action office, and
           corrective action type). In addition, we reviewed three data
           elements that were unique to either USERRA cases (case subtype,
           agency name, and source code) or non-USERRA cases (allegation,
           name, and personnel action).

           Our review focused on a randomly selected sample of 160 cases from
           the 3,604 closed cases OSC received from October 1, 2004, through
           March 31, 2006, as it covers the period since we last reviewed the
           reliability of computer-generated data at OSC.^3 Of the 3,604
           closed cases, 175 were USERRA cases and 3,429 were non-USERRA. Our
           randomly selected sample was for 66 USERRA and 94 non-USERRA cases
           or 160 cases. Although we compared electronic data in OSC 2000 to
           the case files for all 160 cases in our sample, we removed from
           our analysis 2 cases from our original sample of 66 USERRA cases,
           leaving 64, because we learned that they were filed by
           Transportation Security Administration security screeners and
           supervisory security screeners, who are not covered by USERRA--for
           a total of 158 cases in our sample.^4 In addition, for each data
           element, we excluded cases if information was missing from the
           case file, thus preventing a comparison between data in OSC 2000
           and the case file.

           For data elements pertaining to time (i.e., date received and date
           closed for both USERRA and non-USERRA cases), we also did not
           include differences between the data in OSC 2000 and the case
           files when they were off by 1 day, only differences of more than 1
           day.

           For the purposes of this report, we assessed reliability by the
           amount of agreement between the data in OSC 2000 and the source
           case files. We did not evaluate the accuracy of the source case
           files for the data elements reviewed.

           We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from April 2006 through
           December 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
           auditing standards.
			  
^1Our sample was divided into USERRA and non-USERRA cases, as we are doing
additional work on USERRA at OSC.

^2We counted remarks as a single data element; remarks might have
contained different content in different tables.

^3GAO, U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Strategy for Reducing Persistent
Backlog of Cases Should Be Provided to Congress, [44]GAO-04-36
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2004), and U.S. Office of Special Counsel's
Role in Enforcing Law to Protect Reemployment Rights of Veterans and
Reservists in Federal Employment, [45]GAO-05-74R (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
6, 2004).

^4Transportation Security Administration security screeners and
supervisory security screeners are not covered by USERRA. See, Spain v.
Department of Homeland Security, 99 M.S.P.R. 529 (2005), citing to Conyers
v. M.S.P.B, 388 F3d. 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Transportation Security
Administration, however, voluntarily permits OSC to investigate USERRA
claims.
			  
			  Enclosure II: Review of Selected Data Elements from OSC 2000 to
			  Determine the Reliability of the Data

           We compared electronic data for 11 selected data elements in OSC
           2000 to the source case files for 158 randomly selected closed
           cases received from October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2006. For
           the purposes of this report, we assessed reliability by the amount
           of agreement between the data in OSC 2000 and the source case
           files.^1 Our random sample for USERRA and non-USERRA cases was
           sufficient for us to comment on the reliability of the 11 selected
           data elements for closed cases in OSC 2000 (see enc. I for a
           discussion of our sampling methodology).^2
			  
			  Data Elements Reviewed in USERRA Cases

           For USERRA cases, we reviewed the following data elements: date
           received, date closed, agency name, case type, case subtype,
           source code, action office, and corrective action type. We
           excluded cases by data element from the original sample size of 64
           cases when information was missing from the case file. Of the 64
           cases reviewed, 5 were missing information from the source case
           file for at least one of the data elements. For one data element
           reviewed for USERRA cases, source code, data were not sufficiently
           reliable because of a high degree of incompleteness in OSC 2000
           (i.e., OSC 2000 generally did not contain the data). Another data
           element, corrective action, is not sufficiently reliable for
           USERRA cases (i.e., would expect a match between OSC 2000 and the
           case file in more than 76 percent of cases) but is sufficiently
           reliable for non-USERRA cases (would expect a match between OSC
           2000 and the case file in more than 89 percent of cases). Table 1
           shows a breakdown of the eight data elements reviewed for USERRA
           cases by sample size, matches between the case file and OSC 2000,
           and the percentage to which we are 95 percent confident of such a
           match for all USERRA cases.

           Table 1: Breakdown of Data Elements Reviewed for USERRA Cases

                            Matches between                           
                             the case file       One-sided 95 percent 
                     Sample  and OSC 2000     confidence interval for 
Data element      size^a          Number     percentage matching^b Percent 
Date received         63              56                        89     >81 
Date closed           63              61                        97     >92 
Case type             64              64                       100     >96 
Case subtype ^c       50              48                        96     >89 
Agency name           64              64                       100     >96 
Source code           63               1                         2         
Action office         63              62                        98     >93 
Corrective action     63              53                        84     >76 
type                                                                       

           Source: GAO analysis of OSC 2000 data.

           ^aWe generally excluded cases from the original sample size of 64
           cases when information was missing from the case file, which
           accounts for any differences from 64.

           ^bWe are 95 percent confident that a match will occur between OSC
           2000 and the case files for data elements in closed USERRA cases
           more or less than the percentage shown.

           ^cUSERRA cases are either referral or demonstration project cases,
           and only demonstration project cases have case subtypes. Thus for
           case subtype, we excluded 11 cases that were referral cases for
           which case subtype is not a relevant data element. We also
           excluded 3 cases because information was missing from the case
           files.

           Two of the USERRA data elements concerned time: date received and
           date closed. Date received could be verified in OSC 2000 data for
           63 cases where information was present in the case file; the
           average difference between the case file and OSC 2000 was less
           than 1 day. Of those 63 cases, 7 were off by more than 1 day. ^3
           The greatest difference in date received between the case file and
           the date in OSC 2000 was 14 days. Similarly, date closed could be
           verified in OSC 2000 data for 63 cases where information was
           present in the case file; the average difference between the case
           file and OSC 2000 was less than 1 day. Of those 63 cases, 1 was
           off by more than 1 day, and the difference in date closed between
           the case file and the date in OSC 2000 was 6 days.

^1We did not evaluate the accuracy of the source case files for the data
elements reviewed.

^2Because we sampled a portion of OSC cases, our results are estimates of
closed cases and are subject to sampling error. For example, in table 1,
we are 95 percent confident that for USERRA cases the date closed data
element has a match rate of at least 92 percent. This one-sided confidence
interval indicates that there is at least a 95 percent chance that a match
will occur between OSC 2000 and the case files for this data element in
USERRA cases in at least 92 percent of cases.

^3We excluded cases that were off by 1 day for date received, because that
difference could include a case that was received late one afternoon and
entered the following morning.
			  
			  Non-USERRA Data Elements Reviewed

           For non-USERRA case types, we reviewed the following data
           elements: date received, date closed, allegations, name
           (complainant/subject),^4 case type, personnel action, action
           office, and corrective action type. We excluded cases from the
           original sample size of 94 cases when information was missing from
           the case file. Of the 94 cases reviewed, 15 were missing
           information from the source case file, and we excluded 24 others
           because they were whistleblower disclosure and Hatch Act cases,
           which generally do not contain personnel actions.^5 Table 2 shows
           a breakdown of the eight data elements reviewed for non-USERRA
           cases by sample size, matches between the case file and OSC 2000,
           and the percentage to which we are 95 percent confident of such a
           match for all USERRA cases.

           Table 2: Breakdown of Data Elements Reviewed for Non-USERRA Cases
			  
                                   Matches                         
                                 between the                       
                                  case file   One-sided 95 percent 
                                   and OSC     confidence interval 
                          Sample    2000            for percentage 
Data element           size^a      Number            matching^b Percentage 
Date received              94          84                    89        >83 
Date closed                93          89                    96        >91 
Allegation                 94          93                    99        >95 
Name                       94          94                   100        >97 
(Complainant/subject)                                                      
Case type                  94          93                    99        >95 
Personnel action^c         55          53                    96        >89 
Action office              91          89                    98        >93 
Corrective action type     93          88                    95        >89 

           Source: GAO analysis of OSC 2000 data.

           ^aWe generally excluded cases from the original sample size of 94
           cases when information was missing from the case file, which
           accounts from any differences from 94.

           ^bWe are 95 percent confident that a match will occur between OSC
           2000 and the case files for data elements in closed non-USERRA
           cases more or less than the percentage shown.

           ^cFor personnel action code, of the 94 cases, we excluded a total
           of 39 from the sample. We excluded 24 cases because they were
           whistleblower disclosure or Hatch Act cases, which generally do
           not contain personnel actions, although 1 whistleblower disclosure
           case included information in the case file to verify data in OSC
           2000. We excluded 15 others because they were missing information
           in the case file.

           As in the USERRA cases, two data elements concerned time: date
           received and date closed. Across the 94 non-USERRA cases, the
           average difference between OSC 2000 and the case file in the date
           received data element was about +2 days. Of those 94 cases, 10
           cases were off by more than 1 day.^6 The greatest difference in
           date received between the case file and the date in OSC 2000 was
           at least 86 days. Date closed could be verified in OSC 2000 data
           for 93 cases where information was present in the case file; the
           average difference between OSC 2000 and the case file was less
           than 1 day, and no cases were off by more than 1 day.

^4For prohibited personnel practices and whistleblower disclosures, there
would be a complainant filing a claim or making a disclosure, whereas with
a Hatch Act case the focus of the allegation would be the subject.

^5One whistleblower disclosure case included information in the case file
that we could verify with data in OSC 2000.

^6We excluded cases that were off by 1 day for date received, because that
difference could include a case that was received late one afternoon and
entered the following morning.
			  
			  Enclosure III: Comments from the Office of Special Counsel
			  
			  Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
			  
			  GAO Contact

           George H Stalcup, (202) 512-9490 or [email protected] ..
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgements

           In addition to the individual named above, Belva M. Martin,
           Assistant Director; Karin Fangman, David Fox, Randy Hite, Kiki
           Theodoropoulos, Jason Vassilicos, and Greg Wilmoth made key
           contributions to this report.

           GAOï¿½s Mission
			  
			  The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

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

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

(450484)

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.

References

Visible links
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-36
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-74R
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-36
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-74R
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/IMTEC-93-28
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-199
  32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-199
  33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-328
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-36
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-36
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-74R
*** End of document. ***