GAO's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2008 (01-MAR-07, 	 
GAO-07-421SP).							 
                                                                 
This report presents the Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
Performance Plans for Fiscal Year 2008. In the spirit of the	 
Government Performance and Results Act, this annual plan informs 
the Congress and the American people about what we expect to	 
accomplish on their behalf in the coming fiscal year. It sets	 
forth our plan to make progress toward achieving our strategic	 
goals for serving the Congress and the American people. This	 
framework not only shows the relationship between our strategic  
goals and strategic objectives, but also show major themes that  
could potentially affect our work.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-421SP					        
    ACCNO:   A66865						        
  TITLE:     GAO's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2008	      
     DATE:   03/01/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Budgeting						 
	     Budgets						 
	     Financial management				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Performance management				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-421SP

   

     * [1]PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
     * [2]GAO's Mission
     * [3]Performance Information
     * [4]Budgetary Resources
     * [5]Strategies

          * [6]Conducting Engagements
          * [7]Examining Past Work and Service
          * [8]Soliciting Input from Experts
          * [9]Collaborating with Other Organizations
          * [10]Using Our Internal Experts

     * [11]Goal 1's Strategic Objectives and Targets
     * [12]Goal 2's Strategic Objectives and Targets
     * [13]Goal 3's Strategic Objectives and Targets
     * [14]Goal 4's Strategic Objectives
     * [15]Physical Security Challenge
     * [16]Information Security Challenge
     * [17]Human Capital Challenge
     * [18]Verifying and Validating Performance Data
     * [19]Program Evaluation

                     PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

              Mission, Performance Plans, Resources and Strategies

GAO's Mission

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan, professional services agency in the
legislative branch of the federal government. Commonly known as the "audit
and investigative arm of the Congress" or the "congressional watchdog," we
examine how taxpayer dollars are spent and advise lawmakers and agency
heads on ways to make government work better.

Our mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the
accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American
people. We accomplish our mission by providing reliable information and
informed analysis to the Congress, federal agencies, and the public, and
we recommend improvements, when appropriate, on a wide variety of issues.
Three core values--accountability, integrity, and reliability--form the
basis for all of our work, regardless of its origin.

As a legislative branch agency, we are exempt from many laws that apply to
the executive branch agencies. However, we generally hold ourselves to the
spirit of many of the laws, including the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Among other things, GPRA requires "each agency
to prepare an annual performance plan covering each program activity set
forth in the budget of such agency." This section of our budget submission
constitutes our performance plan for fiscal year 2008.

Performance Information

To accomplish our mission, we use a strategic planning and management
process that is based on the following four strategic goals:

           o Strategic Goal 1: Provide timely, quality service to the
           Congress and the federal government to address current and
           emerging challenges to the well-being and financial security of
           the American people.

           o Strategic Goal 2: Provide timely, quality service to the
           Congress and the federal government to respond to changing
           security threats and the challenges of global interdependence.

           o Strategic Goal 3: Help transform the federal government's role
           and how it does business to meet 21st century challenges.

           o Strategic Goal 4: Maximize the value of GAO by being a model
           federal agency and a world-class professional services
           organization.

Our work is primarily aligned under the first three strategic goals, which
span issues that are both domestic and international, affect the lives of
all Americans, and influence the extent to which the federal government
serves the nation's current and future interests. The fourth goal--our
only internal one--is aimed at maximizing our productivity.^1

^1Complete descriptions of the steps in our strategic planning and
management process are included in our strategic plan for fiscal years
2004 through 2009, which is available on our Web site at
http://www.gao.gov . We plan to update our strategic plan early in
calendar year 2007.

For several years, we assessed our performance annually using quantitative
performance measures that are related to our work results and the
usefulness of those results to our primary client--the Congress. Recently,
we expanded our focus to include a more balanced set of performance
measures that focus on four key areas--results, clients, people, and
internal operations. These categories of measures are briefly described
below.^2

           o Results. Focusing on results and the effectiveness of the
           processes needed to achieve them is fundamental to accomplishing
           our mission. To assess our results, we measure financial benefits,
           nonfinancial benefits, recommendations implemented, and percentage
           of new products with recommendations. Financial benefits and
           nonfinancial benefits provide quantitative and qualitative
           information, respectively, on the outcomes or results that have
           been achieved from our work. They often represent outcomes that
           occurred or are expected to occur over several years. The
           remaining measures are intermediate outcomes in that they often
           lead to achieving outcomes that are ultimately captured in our
           financial and nonfinancial benefits.

           o Clients. To judge how well we are serving our clients, we count
           the number of congressional hearings where we are asked to present
           expert testimony as well as our timeliness in delivering products
           to the Congress. Our strategy in this area also draws upon a
           variety of data sources (e.g., our client feedback survey and
           in-person discussions with congressional staff) to obtain
           information on the services we are providing to our congressional
           clients.

           o People. As our most important asset, our people define our
           character and capacity to perform. A variety of data sources,
           including an internal survey, provide information to help us
           measure how well we are attracting and retaining high-quality
           staff and how well we are developing, supporting, using, and
           leading staff.

           o Internal operations. Our mission and people are supported by our
           internal administrative services, including information
           management, building management, knowledge services, human
           capital, and financial management services. Through an internal
           customer satisfaction survey, we gather information on how well
           our internal operations help employees get their jobs done or
           improve employees' quality of work life.

The results and client measures primarily relate to strategic goals 1
through 3 and the people and internal operations measures primarily relate
to goal 4. For all of our measures, we set targets at the agencywide
level. Table 24 presents our actual and targeted performance for each of
our measures. For three of these measures--financial benefits,
nonfinancial benefits, and testimonies--we also set targets at the goal
level; the goal-level targets are shown later in this document.

^2For more complete descriptions of these measures, refer to our
performance and accountability report, which is available on our Web site.

Table 24: Agencywide Annual Measures and Targets

                                     2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008  
Performance measures                                                       
                                    Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target 
Results                                                                    
Financial benefits                                                         
                                     $35.4  $44.0  $39.6  $51.0  $40.0  $41.5 
(dollars in billions)                                                      
Nonfinancial benefits             1,043  1,197  1,409  1,342  1,100  1,150 
Past recommendations implemented    82%    83%    85%    82%    80%    80% 
New products with                   55%    63%    63%    65%    60%    60% 
recommendations                                                            
Client                                                                     
Testimonies                         189    217    179    240    185    220 
Timeliness^a                        N/A    89%    90%    92%  95%^b  95^b% 
People                                                                     
New hire rate                       98%    98%    94%    94%  95%^c    95% 
Acceptance rate                     72%    72%    71%    70%  72%^c    72% 
Retention rate with retirements     92%    90%    90%    90%  90%^c    90% 
Retention rate without              96%    95%    94%    94%  94%^c    94% 
retirements                                                                
Staff development                   67%    70%    72%    76%    75%    76% 
Staff utilization                   71%    72%    75%    75%    78%    78% 
Leadership                          78%    79%    80%    79%    80%    80% 
Organizational climate              71%    74%    76%    73%    76%    76% 
Internal operationsd                                                       
Help get job done                  3.98   4.01   4.10    N/A    4.0    4.0 
Quality of work life               3.96   3.96   3.98    N/A    4.0    4.0 

Source: GAO.

Note: Information explaining the measures included in this table appears
in the Data Quality and Program Evaluation

section.

^aSince fiscal year 2004 we have collected data from our client feedback
survey on the quality and timeliness of our products, and in fiscal year
2006 we began to use the independent feedback from this survey as a basis
for determining our timeliness.

^bOur fiscal year 2007 target for timeliness shown above differs from the
target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2007 performance
budget in January 2006. Specifically, we decreased our timeliness target
by 3 percentage points to create a challenging target given our new method
for calculating this measure.

^cOur fiscal year 2007 targets for the first four people measures shown
above differ from the targets we reported for these measures in our fiscal
year 2007 performance budget in January 2006. Specifically, we lowered the
new hire rate target by 2 percentage points and the acceptance rate target
by 3 percentage points and decreased by 1 percentage point each of the
targets associated with retention rate. We made these adjustments on the
basis of our past performance and future budget projections.

^dFor our internal operations measures, we will report actual data for
fiscal year 2006 once data from our November 2006 internal customer
satisfaction survey have been analyzed.

Budgetary Resources

GPRA also requires agencies to briefly describe the operational processes;
skills and technology; and the human capital, information, or other
resources required to meet the agency's performance goals, which in our
case are our performance measures, and to briefly describe the operational
processes that will be used to attain the planned performance levels.

Our strategy is largely based on our staff who carry out the work that
supports our mission. We maintain a workforce of highly trained
professionals with degrees in many academic disciplines, including
accounting, law, engineering, public and business administration,
economics, and the social and physical sciences. About three-quarters of
our approximately 3,200 employees are based at our headquarters in
Washington, D.C.; the rest are deployed in 11 field offices across the
country. Staff in these field offices are aligned with our research,
audit, and evaluation teams and perform work in tandem with our
headquarters staff.

Table 25 provides an overview of how our human capital resources (shown as
full-time equivalent (FTE) positions) and budgetary resources are
allocated among our strategic goals for fiscal years 2006 through 2008.

Table 25: Resources by Strategic Goal, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

(Dollars in millions)

                                        FY 2006          FY 2007    FY 2008
                                                                         
                                        actual           revised   requested
Strategic goal               FTEs Amount FTEs Amount    FTEs      Amount
Goal 1                                                                     
                                                                              
Provide timely, quality                                                    
service to the Congress and                                                
the federal government to                                                  
address current and emerging                                               
challenges to the well-being                                               
and financial security of                                                  
the American people.               1,205        $176 1,173 $180 1,213 $193 
Goal 2                                                                     
                                                                              
Provide timely, quality                                                    
service to the Congress and                                                
the federal government to                                                  
respond to changing threats                                                
and the challenges of global                                               
interdependence.                     992        $145   968 $148 1,000 $160 
Goal 3                                                                     
                                                                              
Help transform the federal                                                 
government's role and how it                                               
does business to meet 21st                                                 
century challenges.                  854        $125   833 $127   860 $137 
Goal 4                                                                     
                                                                              
Maximize the value of GAO by                                               
being a model federal agency                                               
and a world-class                                                          
professional services                                                      
organization.                        143         $38   139  $30   144  $40 
Total                              3,194        $484 3,113 $485 3,217 $530 

Source: GAO.

Strategies

Our strategies primarily emphasize providing information from our work to
the Congress and the public in a variety of forms and continuing and
strengthening our internal operations. Our strategies also emphasize the
importance of two overarching approaches: (1) working with other
organizations on crosscutting issues and (2) effectively addressing the
challenges to achieving our agency's goals and recognizing the internal
and external factors that could impair our performance. Through these
strategies, which have proven successful for us for a number of years, we
plan to achieve the level of performance that is needed to do the work we
agreed to do for the Congress (reflected in our qualitative performance
goals) and meet our annual performance measures, and that, in turn, will
allow us to achieve our strategic goals.

Conducting Engagements

Attaining our three external strategic goals (goals 1, 2, and 3) and their
related objectives rests, for the most part, on providing professional,
objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced
information to support the Congress in carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities. To implement the performance goals and key efforts
related to these three goals, we develop and present information in a
number of ways:

           o evaluating federal policies, programs, and the performance of
           agencies;
           o overseeing government operations through financial and other
           management audits to determine whether public funds are spent
           efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with applicable laws;
           o investigating whether illegal or improper activities are
           occurring;
           o analyzing the financing for government activities;
           o conducting various constructive engagements in which we work
           proactively with agencies, when appropriate, to provide advice
           that may assist their efforts toward positive results;
           o providing legal opinions that determine whether agencies are in
           compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
           o conducting policy analyses to assess needed actions and the
           implications of proposed actions; and
           o providing additional assistance to the Congress in support of
           its oversight and decision-making responsibilities.

We plan to conduct specific engagements as a result of requests from
congressional committees and mandates written into legislation,
resolutions, and committee reports. We will augment requested and mandated
work with a limited number of engagements initiated under the Comptroller
General's authority.^3

Our staff is responsible for gathering all the relevant data and for
following high standards for documenting and supporting the information we
collect and analyze. More often than not, we will document this
information in a product that we make available to the public. However, in
some cases, we will develop products that contain classified or sensitive
information that we cannot make available publicly. We generally issue
around 1,200 to 1,300 products each year, either electronically or in
printed format. Among the products we will issue during fiscal year 2008
will be

^3For example, in fiscal year 2006, we devoted 85 percent of our
engagement resources to work requested or mandated by the Congress and
initiated the remaining 15 percent of the engagement work under the
Comptroller General's authority. Much of this work addressed various
challenges that are of broad-based interest to the Congress, such as the
global war on terrorism, the cost and status of the reconstruction efforts
in Iraq, and our reviews related to the 2005 hurricane season. Also
covered by this work were government programs and operations that we have
identified as at high risk for fraud, abuse, and mismanagement as well as
reviews of agencies' budget requests to help support congressional
decision making.

           o letter reports and chapter reports that when printed, are issued
           with our traditional blue cover;
           o correspondence, which is a written letter that does not have a
           blue cover;
           o testimonies and statements for the record, where the former are
           delivered orally by one or more of our senior executives at a
           hearing and the latter are provided for inclusion in the
           congressional record; and
           o oral briefings, which are usually given directly to
           congressional staff members.

We anticipate that collectively our products will contain information,
conclusions, and recommendations that will allow us to achieve our
external strategic goals.

Examining Past Work and Service

During fiscal year 2008, we also will continue to examine the impact of
our past work and use that information to shape our future work.
Specifically, we will evaluate actions taken by federal agencies and the
Congress in response to our past recommendations and, if appropriate,
document those actions as financial benefits and nonfinancial benefits. We
will actively monitor the status of our open recommendations--those that
remain valid but have not yet been implemented--and report our findings
annually to the Congress and the public (
http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html ). Similarly, we will use our
biennial high-risk report, which will be updated in January 2007, to
provide a status report on major government operations that we consider
high risk because they are vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement or are in need of broad-based transformation.

To attain our fourth strategic goal, we will conduct surveys of our
congressional clients and internal customers to obtain feedback on our
products, processes, and services, and perform studies and evaluations to
identify ways to improve them.

Soliciting Input from Experts

Through a series of forums, advisory boards, and panels; periodic scans of
international and national issues that affect the political and social
environment in which we work; and our speakers' series, we will gather
information and perspectives for our strategic and annual planning
efforts.

Advisory boards and panels will support our strategic and annual work
planning by alerting us to issues, trends, and lessons learned across the
national and international audit community that we should factor into our
work. During fiscal year 2008, these groups will continue to include

           o the Comptroller General's Advisory Board, whose 40 members from
           the public and private sectors have broad expertise in areas
           related to our strategic objectives;
           o the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum and 10 regional
           intergovernmental audit forums through which we will consult
           regularly with federal inspectors general and state and local
           auditors; and
           o the Domestic Working Group, which is composed of the Comptroller
           General and the heads of 18 federal, state, and local audit
           organizations that exchange information and seek opportunities to
           collaborate.

We also will continue to work with a number of issue-specific and
technical panels to improve our strategic and annual work planning, such
as the following:

           o The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards provides
           us guidance on promulgating auditing standards. These standards
           articulate auditors' responsibilities when examining government
           organizations; programs; activities; functions; and government
           assistance received by contractors, nonprofits, and other
           nongovernmental organizations. The council's work ensured that the
           revised standards would be generally accepted and feasible.
           o The Accountability Advisory Council, made up of experts in the
           financial management community, advises us on audits of the U.S.
           government's consolidated financial statements and emerging issues
           involving financial management and accountability reporting in the
           public and private sectors.
           o The Executive Council on Information Management and Technology,
           whose 19 members are experts from the public and private sectors
           and representatives of related professional organizations, helps
           us to identify high-risk and emerging issues in the information
           technology (IT) arena.
           o The Comptroller General's Educators' Advisory Panel, composed of
           deans, professors, and other academics from prominent universities
           across the United States, advises us on recruiting, retaining, and
           developing staff and on strategic planning matters.

Internationally, we will continue to participate in the International
Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI)--the professional
organization of the national audit offices of 186 countries. During the
fall of 2004, the INTOSAI Congress unanimously adopted a 5-year strategic
plan--the first in INTOSAI's 50-year history--that was developed by a
10-nation task force chaired by the Comptroller General. This plan has
provided the foundation for the Governing Board to engage member
institutions in advancing professional audit standards and promoting
knowledge sharing.

Scheduled events for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are as follows:

           o Accountability Advisory Council (February 2007)
           o Forum on Modernizing Disability Policies & Program (March 2007)
           o Expert Panel on the Chief Management Officer/ Chief Operating
           Officer Concept (March 2007)
           o Global Working Group Meeting (April 2007)
           o Comptroller General Advisory Board Meeting (April 2007)
           o Domestic Working Group Meeting (May 2007)
           o Forum on the Financial Unsustainability of the Current Health
           System (Spring 2007)
           o Forum on Challenges in Defining and Moving towards a 21st
           Century National Transportation Policy (Spring 2007)
           o Educator's Advisory Council Meeting (June 2007)
           o Forum on Risk Management (October 2007)

Collaborating with Other Organizations

By collaborating with others, we plan to continue strengthening
professional standards, providing technical assistance, leveraging
resources, and developing best practices. For example, to build capacity
in the national audit offices around the world, we will continue our
international audit fellows program for mid- to senior-level staff from
other countries. In 2006, 12 audit fellows from Africa, Asia, Europe,
Latin America, and the South Pacific spent about 4 months at GAO learning
how we are organized to do our work, how we plan our work, and what
methodologies we use, particularly for performance audits. As part of our
strategy to promote continuous learning and sustainability once the
fellows return to their countries, we are working with major donors--such
as the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development--to
identify or support relevant capacity-building projects in fellows'
institutions. Seven current and eight former auditors general as well as
several deputy auditors general, including the current chair of INTOSAI,
are graduates of this program.

Collaborative activities undertaken by our staff during 2006 illustrate
the activities we will continue in fiscal year 2008. Selected activities
are described beginning on page 52 in our performance and accountability
report for fiscal year 2006.

Using Our Internal Experts

We coordinate extensively within our own organization in preparing our
strategic and annual performance plans, as well as our performance and
accountability reports. We conduct our efforts under the overall direction
of the Comptroller General and the Chief Operating Officer. We rely on our
Chief Administrative Officer--who is also our Chief Financial Officer--and
her staff to provide key information, such as the financial information.
Her staff also coordinates with others throughout the agency to provide
the information on goal 4's results and provides input on other efforts
dealing with issues such as financial management, budgetary resources,
training, and security. We obtain input on all aspects of our strategic
and annual performance planning and reporting efforts from each of our
engagement teams and organizational units through their respective
managing directors, as well as other staff responsible for planning or
engagement activities in the teams. Staff from our Budget Office and our
Quality and Continuous Improvement (QCI) office prepare our performance
plans. In short, we involve virtually every part of GAO and use our
internal expertise in our planning and reporting efforts.

                      Performance Plans by Strategic Goal

In the following sections, we discuss performance results, strategic
objectives and plans for each of our four strategic goals. Specifically,
for goals 1, 2, and 3--our external goals--we present performance results
for the three annual measures that we assess at the goal level. Most teams
and units also contributed to meeting the targets for the agencywide
measures that were discussed earlier in this report.

Goal 1's Strategic Objectives and Targets

Our first strategic goal upholds our mission to support the Congress in
carrying out its constitutional responsibilities by focusing on work that
helps address the current and emerging challenges affecting the well-being
and financial security of the American people and American communities.
Our strategic objectives under this goal are to provide information that
will help address

           o the health needs of an aging and diverse population;
           o the education and protection of the nation's children;
           o the promotion of work opportunities and the protection of
           workers;
           o a secure retirement for older Americans;
           o an effective system of justice;
           o the promotion of viable communities;
           o responsible stewardship of natural resources and the
           environment; and
           o a safe, secure, and effective national physical infrastructure.

These objectives, along with the performance goals and key efforts that
support them, are discussed fully in our strategic plan, which is
available on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov . The work supporting
these objectives was performed primarily by headquarters and field office
staff in the following teams: Education, Workforce, and Income Security;
Financial Markets and Community Investment; Health Care; Homeland Security
and Justice; Natural Resources and Environment; and Physical
Infrastructure.

To accomplish our work under these strategic objectives in fiscal year
2008, we will conduct engagements, audits, analyses, and evaluations of
programs at major federal agencies, such as the Departments of Education,
Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban
Development, the Interior, and Transportation and develop reports and
testimonies on the efficacy and soundness of programs they administer. For
example, during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, we anticipate conducting work
related to

           o collection of oil royalties produced from federal lands,
           o climate change policies and programs,
           o ecosystem restoration efforts in Florida and Louisiana,
           o reauthorization of the Farm Bill and the Substance Abuse and
           Mental Health Services Administration,
           o preparing for bioterrorism and other public health emergencies,
           o the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program,
           o small business lending programs,
           o diversity in the size and complexity of the banking and
           financial services sector,
           o the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's single-employer
           insurance program,
           o the Mine Safety and Health Administration's oversight role,
           o support for and oversight of school improvement efforts,
           o the Social Security Administration's disability programs,
           o U.S. Postal Service management and accountability,
           o grant funds provided to states for highway safety programs,
           o progress in improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles,
           o air traffic control modernization,
           o managing federal real property,
           o telecommunications and Internet activities of the Federal
           Communications Commission,
           o progress made in transitioning to digital television,
           o the prevalence of domestic violence and support services
           available to victims of such crimes,
           o costs of prisons,
           o bilingual voting, and
           o child support enforcement under bankruptcy.

Table 26 presents our performance results and targets for strategic goal
1.

Table 26: Strategic Goal 1's Annual Performance Results and Targets

                           2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008 
                                                                   
Performance measures  actual actual actual actual target target 
Financial benefits                                              
                                                                   
(dollars in billions)  $23.7  $26.6  $15.6  $22.0  $20.2  $21.2 
Nonfinancial benefits    217    252    277    268    256    257 
Testimonies               80     85     88     97     78     90 

Source: GAO.

Goal 2's Strategic Objectives and Targets

The federal government is working to promote foreign policy goals, sound
trade polices, and other strategies to advance the interests of the United
States and its allies while also seeking to anticipate and address
emerging threats to the nation's security and economy. Given the
importance of these efforts, our second strategic goal focuses on helping
the Congress and the federal government respond to changing security
threats and the challenges of global interdependence. Our strategic
objectives under this goal are to support the congressional and federal
efforts to

           o respond to emerging threats to security,
           o ensure military capabilities and readiness,
           o advance and protect U.S. international interests, and
           o respond to the impact of global market forces on U.S. economic
           and security interests.

These objectives, along with the performance goals and key efforts that
support them, are discussed fully in our strategic plan, which is
available on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. The work supporting these
objectives is performed primarily by headquarters and field staff in the
following teams: Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Defense Capabilities
and Management, and International Affairs and Trade. In addition, the work
supporting some performance goals and key efforts is performed by
headquarters and field staff from the Information Technology, Homeland
Security and Justice, Financial Markets and Community Investment, and
Natural Resources and Environment teams.

To accomplish our work under these strategic objectives in fiscal year
2008, we will conduct engagements and audits that involve fieldwork
related to domestic and international programs in Africa, Asia, Europe,
North America, and South America. As in the past, we will develop reports,
testimonies, and briefings on our work. For example, during fiscal years
2007 and 2008, we anticipate conducting work related to

           o the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile;
           o reviews of defense and other budget requests;
           o Department of Defense (DOD) weapon system acquisition;
           o DOD and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
           contracting;
           o Defense research, development, test, and evaluation projects;
           o the Future Combat Systems program;
           o the Ballistic Missile Defense System;
           o the Joint Strike Fighter;
           o Defense program manager empowerment and accountability;
           o weapon system investment decisions;
           o deployable and mobile command and control systems;
           o DOD and prime contractor policies and practices for quality
           assurance and quality control;
           o employment of former DOD acquisition staff by defense
           contractors;
           o protecting critical U.S. technologies from risk of exploitation;
           o federal contracting issues;
           o Defense infrastructure and inventory management;
           o the Army's active and reserve components;
           o base realignment and closure;
           o readiness of the military services;
           o capabilities to counter improvised explosive devises;
           o DOD's strategic human capital plan to share and improve its
           civilian employee workforce;
           o the Army's recruitment incentive plans;
           o protecting mission-critical infrastructure assets in the United
           States and overseas;
           o stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan;
           o capacity building of foreign governments and security forces;
           o U.S. foreign assistance programs;
           o U.S. support for global health initiatives;
           o efforts to combat terrorism abroad;
           o U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting efforts;
           o passport and visa security procedures;
           o multilateral financial institutions;
           o U.S. programs to ensure free and fair trade;
           o Department of Homeland Security management;
           o aviation screening technology;
           o commercial vehicle security and hazardous materials drivers;
           o railroad freight security;
           o maritime security and U.S. Coast Guard international
           enforcement;
           o factors affecting asylum outcomes;
           o immigration enforcement; and
           o homeland security-related information centers.

Table 27 presents our performance results and targets for strategic goal
2.

Table 27: Strategic Goal 2's Annual Performance Results and Targets

                           2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008 
                                                                   
Performance measures  actual actual actual actual target target 
Financial benefits                                              
                                                                   
(dollars in billions)   $7.1   $9.7  $12.9  $12.0   $9.8   $9.8 
Nonfinancial benefits    273    369    365    449    290    309 
Testimonies               48     70     42     68     52     59 

Source: GAO.

Goal 3's Strategic Objectives and Targets

Our third strategic goal focuses on the collaborative and integrated
elements needed for the federal government to achieve results. The work
under this goal highlights the intergovernmental relationships that are
necessary to achieve national goals. Our multiyear (fiscal years
2004-2009) strategic objectives under this goal are to

           o reexamine the federal government's role in achieving evolving
           national objectives;
           o support the transformation to results-oriented, high-performing
           government;
           o support congressional oversight of key management challenges and
           program risks to improve federal operations and ensure
           accountability; and
           o analyze the government's fiscal position and strengthen
           approaches for addressing the current and projected fiscal gap.

These objectives, along with the performance goals and key efforts that
support them, are discussed fully in our strategic plan, which is
available on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov . The work supporting
these objectives is performed primarily by headquarters and field staff
from the Applied Research and Methods, Financial Management and Assurance,
Information Technology, and Strategic Issues teams. In addition, the work
supporting some performance goals and key efforts is performed by
headquarters and field staff from the Acquisition and Sourcing Management
and Natural Resources and Environment teams. This goal also includes our
bid protest and appropriations law work, which is performed by staff in
General Counsel, and our fraud investigations, which are conducted by
staff from the Financial Management and Assurance team.

To accomplish our work under these four objectives, we plan to conduct
audits, evaluations, and analyses in response to congressional requests
and to carry out work initiatives under the Comptroller General's
authority. As in the past, we will develop reports, testimonies, and
briefings on our work. For example, during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, we
anticipate conducting work related to

           o influenza pandemic issues;
           o lessons learned from creating Chief Operating Officer and Chief
           Management Officer positions;
           o the nation's long-term fiscal challenge;
           o federal budget processes and controls;
           o regulatory issues related to reexamining government;
           o 2010 Census plans;
           o tax credits and policies;
           o reducing the gap between taxes owed and taxes collected;
           o congressional oversight efforts;
           o fiscal relief to states during future economic downturns;
           o targeting Community Development Block Grant funds;
           o the effectiveness of the federal government's use of nonprofit
           entities;
           o adjudicating bid protest and Board of Contract Appeals filings;
           o the annual consolidated financial audit of the federal
           government;
           o the annual financial audits of the Internal Revenue Service, the
           Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Deposit
           Insurance Corporation;
           o financial management reform;
           o financial system and physical security vulnerabilities;
           o fraudulent, wasteful, or abusive spending;
           o accountability over tax revenue;
           o accounting standards for federal agencies;
           o the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Sentinel program;
           o the Internal Revenue Service's business systems modernization;
           o the Department of Homeland Security's privacy policy;
           o the National Archives' electronic records;
           o federal agencies' information security policies and procedures;
           o the Department of Veterans Affairs' IT realignment effort;
           o IT oversight efforts;
           o critical cyber infrastructure; and
           o border security and immigration control IT programs.

Table 28 presents our performance results and targets for strategic goal
3.

Table 28: Strategic Goal 3's Annual Performance Results and Targets

                           2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008 
                                                                   
Performance measures  actual actual actual actual target target 
Financial benefits                                              
                                                                   
(dollars in billions)   $4.7   $7.6  $11.0  $17.0  $10.0  $10.5 
Nonfinancial benefits    553    576    767    625    554    584 
Testimonies               56     60     47     73     55     71 

Source: GAO.

Goal 4's Strategic Objectives

The focus of our fourth strategic goal is to make GAO a model
organization. For us, this means that our work is driven by our external
clients and internal customers, our manager's exhibit the characteristics
of leadership and management excellence, our employees are devoted to
ensuring quality in our work process and products through continuous
improvement, and our agency is regarded by current and potential employees
as an excellent place to work. Our strategic objectives under this goal
are to

           o improve client and customer satisfaction and stakeholder
           relationships,
           o lead strategically to achieve enhanced results,
           o leverage our institutional knowledge and experience,
           o enhance GAO's business and management processes, and
           o become a professional services employer of choice.

These objectives, along with the performance goals and key efforts that
support them, are discussed fully in our strategic plan, which is
available on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov . The work supporting
these objectives, which consists of internal studies and projects, is
performed under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer with
assistance on specific key efforts provided by staff from the Applied
Research and Methods team and from offices such as Strategic Planning and
External Liaison, Congressional Relations, Opportunity and Inclusiveness,
QCI, and Public Affairs. For example, during fiscal years 2007 and 2008,
we anticipate conducting work related to

           o technology and alternative media for communicating our work;
           o internal customer and employee satisfaction surveys;
           o collaborating with other accountability organizations;
           o the International Fellows Program;
           o communication and coordination with external stakeholders;
           o workforce plan and budget improvements;
           o the human capital strategic plan update;
           o recruiting, hiring, and retention strategies and processes;
           o curricula that support performance management system
           competencies;
           o performance management systems that support market-based pay;
           o human capital systems;
           o personnel exchanges with the public and private sectors;
           o internal control activities;
           o financial management system improvements;
           o acquisition process improvements;
           o enterprise architecture efforts;
           o IT life cycle management;
           o electronic records management;
           o Web-based data, tools, and processes;
           o contract management;
           o applied research tools and methods;
           o prepublication quality assurance and publishing process
           improvements;
           o management information systems upgrades;
           o external peer review preparations;
           o recommendation follow-up efforts;
           o the policy manual update;
           o the employee mentoring program;
           o compensation and performance management systems;
           o student intern development;
           o facilities management;
           o emergency preparedness planning;
           o government standard identity card (Smartcard) technology; and
           o the security education and awareness program.

                             Management Challenges

The Comptroller General, the Executive Committee, and our senior
executives identify management challenges through our strategic planning,
management, and budgeting processes. We monitor our progress in addressing
the challenges through our annual performance and accountability process.
Under strategic goal 4, we establish performance goals focused on each of
our management challenges, track our progress in completing the key
efforts for those performance goals quarterly, and report each year on our
progress toward meeting the performance goals.

For fiscal year 2008, we plan to continue addressing three management
challenges--physical security, information security, and human capital. We
anticipate that we may need to continue to address all three of these
management challenges in future years because they are evolving and will
continually require us to identify ways to adapt and improve. We revisit
the challenges each year and refine them when appropriate. When we believe
we have sufficiently addressed these challenges, we will remove them from
our list. We will report any changes as we monitor and report on our
progress in addressing the challenges through our annual performance and
accountability process. The following sections describe our recent and
planned efforts to address these challenges.

Physical Security Challenge

We continue to take essential actions to protect our people and our assets
to ensure continuity of agency operations. The domestic and international
climate demands that we constantly assess our physical security profile
and seek ways to improve and strengthen it. For example, we took positive
steps in fiscal year 2006 to centralize and strengthen our policies and
operations, improve our internal and external communications and
information-sharing efforts, and upgrade and enhance our technical
capabilities.

To strengthen our internal and external communications and information
sharing we will continue to meet regularly with the Legislative Branch
Continuity of Operations Plan Working Group as well as the Executive
Branch Continuity of Operations Working Group. Our Office of Emergency
Preparedness will provide proactive coordination with sister agencies in
the legislative branch, executive branch agencies, and local law
enforcement in the area of contingency planning and for information- and
intelligence-sharing purposes. For example, in fiscal year 2006 we sought
to better inform, educate, and prepare our staff by conducting a
shelter-in-place drill; conducting awareness activities in September,
which was National Preparedness Month; and briefing approximately 1,100
employees in the areas of handling classified information, handling
sensitive but unclassified information, shelter in place, identity theft,
and espionage.

We plan similar efforts throughout fiscal years 2007 and 2008; however, we
will need to complete other initiatives in order to remove this challenge
from our list. In fiscal year 2007, we plan to make progress in
implementing the Integrated Electronic Security System by installing
turnstiles and upgrading the access control and intrusion detection
systems for headquarters. In addition, the Office of Emergency
Preparedness plans to update the continuity of operations plan; develop
and disseminate a pandemic influenza implementation plan; create a working
group and establish continuity points of contact throughout GAO to help
ensure that the needs of the organization, including GAO's field
locations, are considered in developing and implementing emergency plans;
and create an emergency preparedness Web site on GAO's intranet. The smart
card technology, a critical component of our physical security efforts,
will be implemented no earlier than fiscal year 2008. Another effort
planned for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 is developing and communicating
a pandemic strategy for the agency.

Information Security Challenge

Information systems security continues to be a critical activity in
ensuring our information systems and assets are effectively protected and
free from compromise. In fiscal year 2006, we established a wide range of
goals and implemented numerous initiatives to address information systems
security. However, given the constantly evolving nature of threats to
information systems and assets, information security will continue to be a
management challenge for us and all government and private sector entities
at least through fiscal year 2009.

In fiscal year 2007, we will further address the challenge of keeping our
systems and information secure by focusing on data protection using
encryption at the desktop, increasing our vigilance of the centralized
auditing of network servers and devices to better secure our computing
assets within GAO, responding to new and updated security guidance from
the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Office of
Management and Budget, refining our security processes and procedures,
expanding our capabilities for identity management to better control
access to the GAO network, implementing improvements to our contingency
operations, and improving our overall ability to respond to changing
threats by implementing appropriate new technologies to reduce or manage
risks. Some of these efforts will continue into fiscal year 2008.

Some of the efforts we plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 are

           o upgrading access control and intrusion detection systems for
           headquarters and the field offices to fully meet the requirements
           of the Integrated Electronic Security System,
           o enhancing and modifying our security education and awareness
           program based on the information and training needs of our staff,
           and
           o maintaining and enhancing our IT security and emergency
           preparedness program consistent with evolving security practices
           to ensure the protection and recovery of IT assets and services.

Human Capital Challenge

The skills, knowledge, and dedication of our workforce make it possible
for us to deliver the results and performance expected by our clients and
customers. A scan of the strategic environment suggests that competition
for talent among knowledge-based organizations will only continue to
increase, challenging our ability to maintain a top-notch workforce
capable of providing quality products and services to the Congress. To
prepare for this competitive environment as well as for the retirement of
our "baby boom" employees, we will continue efforts to retain
institutional knowledge and experience and enhance our succession planning
and talent acquisition efforts.

One of our greatest challenges is maintaining the right mix of experienced
and knowledgeable staff to carry out our engagements and meet our clients'
needs. We are facing unusual circumstances because of continuity and
succession concerns resulting from downsizing and reduced hiring in the
1990s. Currently, over 41 percent of our analysts and related staff have
fewer than 5 years of agency experience, requiring increased emphasis on
learning and development. To help ensure that our newest entry-level staff
acquire the skills they need to become proficient performers as quickly as
possible, we will continue to emphasize that they receive the proper
training and development during fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

Recruiting, rewarding, and retaining a highly qualified, high-performing,
and diverse workforce in today's competitive environment remains one of
our most important challenges. In fiscal year 2006, we completed a
comprehensive review of our recruitment and hiring activities, resulting
in over 40 recommendations, which will begin to be implemented in fiscal
year 2007. These efforts will likely continue into fiscal year 2008. Among
other things, these recommendations are related to college recruitment
strategies; processes for assessing, interviewing, and hiring candidates
for employment; and hiring administrative and professional support staff.

While we have made progress in addressing human capital issues, more work
remains to be done and we will keep human capital as a management
challenge. Some of the key efforts planned in this area for fiscal years
2007 and 2008 are

           o implementing the recruitment task force recommendations;
           o establishing a community of practice involving senior
           leadership, recruiters, and human capital professionals to enhance
           the recruiting and hiring process;
           o implementing a voluntary mentoring program to maximize
           successful development;
           o enhancing the leadership development programs to prepare
           managerial talent;
           o improving the integration of human capital metrics systems; and
           o increasing the transparency and the staff's knowledge of the
           market-based compensation process.

         Mitigating External Factors That Could Affect Our Performance

Several external factors could affect the achievement of our performance
goals, including the amount of resources we receive, shifts in the content
and volume of our work, and various national and international
developments. Limitations imposed on our work by other organizations or
limitations on the ability of other federal agencies to make the
improvements we recommend are additional factors that could affect the
achievement of our goals.

As the Congress focuses on unpredictable events--such as terrorism,
natural disasters, and military conflicts and threats abroad--the mix of
work we are asked to undertake may change, diverting our resources from
some strategic objectives and performance goals. We can and do mitigate
the impact of these events on the achievement of our goals in various
ways. For example in fiscal year 2006, we

           o stayed abreast of current events (such as protecting our ports
           and borders and preventing possible pandemics) and communicated
           frequently with our congressional clients in order to be alert to
           possibilities that could shift the Congress's priorities or
           trigger new priorities;
           o quickly redirected our resources when appropriate (e.g., on the
           cost and recovery efforts related to Hurricane Katrina) so that we
           could deal with major changes as they occurred;
           o maintained broad-based staff expertise (i.e., in our Social
           Security, health care financing, and homeland security areas) so
           that we could readily address emerging needs; and
           o initiated research under the Comptroller General's authority on
           several selected topics, including various issues relating to
           Iraq, the U.S. federal elections, and our 21st century challenges
           and high-risk work.

We are experiencing heavy demand from the Congress for work in a number of
subject areas, especially in the disaster recovery and preparedness areas
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and in the health care area. Our
ability to effectively manage this demand could have an impact on our
ability to meet our performance targets. We will continue to manage these
requests in order to minimize any negative impact they may have on our
ability to meet the needs of the Congress and the American people. Given
large current federal budget deficits and the nation's long-range fiscal
imbalance, the Congress is likely to place increasing emphasis on fiscal
constraint. Because almost 80 percent of our budget is composed of
people-related costs, any serious budget situation will have an impact on
our human capital policies and practices and in turn would likely impede
our ability to serve the Congress and meet our performance targets.

A growing area for us involves our work on bid protests. As required by
law, our General Counsel prepares Comptroller General procurement law
decisions that resolve protests filed by disappointed bidders. These
bidders challenge the way individual federal procurements are being
conducted or how the contracts were awarded. In recent years, we have
experienced an increase in the number of bid protests that have been
filed, and in fiscal year 2005, the Congress enacted legislation that
expanded our authority to allow certain representatives of affected
government employees to protest when the private sector wins a
private-public competition. We will continue to monitor our workload in
this area to ensure that we meet our statutory responsibilities with
minimal negative impact on our other work.

Another external factor is the extent to which we can obtain access to
certain types of information. With concerns about operational security
being unusually high at home and abroad, we may have more difficulty
obtaining information and reporting on sensitive issues. Historically, our
auditing and information gathering have been limited whenever the
intelligence community is involved. In addition, we have not had the
authority to access or inspect records or other materials held by other
countries or, generally, by the multinational institutions that the United
States works with to protect its interests. Consequently, our ability to
fully assess the progress being made in addressing several national and
homeland security issues may be hampered. Given the heightened security
environment, we also anticipate that more of our reports may be subject to
classification reviews than in the past, which means that the public
dissemination of these products may be limited. We plan to work with the
Congress to identify both legislative and nonlegislative opportunities for
strengthening our access authority as necessary and appropriate.

                      Data Quality and Program Evaluation

Verifying and Validating Performance Data

Each year, we measure our performance by evaluating our annual performance
on measures that cover the outcomes and outputs related to our work
results, client service, and management of our people and internal
operations. To assess our performance in fiscal year 2006, we used
performance data that were complete and actual (rather than projected) for
all of our performance measures. We believe the data to be reliable
because we followed the verification and validation procedures described
here to ensure the data's quality.

The Annual Performance Measures below contain information on the specific
sources of the data for our annual performance measures, procedures for
independently verifying and validating these data, and the limitations of
these data.

                                Results Measures

Financial Benefits

Definition and background

Our work--including our findings and recommendations--may produce benefits
to the federal government that can be estimated in dollar terms. These
benefits can result in better services to the public, changes to statutes
or regulations, or improved government business operations. A financial
benefit is an estimate of the federal monetary effect of agency or
congressional actions. These financial benefits generally result from work
that we completed over the past several years. The funds made available as
a result of the actions taken in response to our work may be used to
reduce government expenditures, increase revenues, or reallocate funds to
other areas. Financial benefits included in our performance measures are
net benefits--that is, estimates of financial benefits that have been
reduced by the identifiable costs associated with taking the action that
we recommended. We convert all estimates involving past and future years
to their net present value and use actual dollars to represent estimates
involving only the current year. Financial benefit amounts vary depending
on the nature of the benefit, and we can claim financial benefits over
multiple years based on a single agency or congressional action.

Financial benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work.
To claim that financial benefits have been achieved, our staff must file
an accomplishment report documenting that (1) the actions taken as a
result of our work have been completed or substantially completed, (2) the
actions generally were taken within 2 fiscal years prior to the filing of
the accomplishment report, (3) a cause-and-effect relationship exists
between the benefits reported and our recommendation or work performed,
and (4) generally estimates of financial benefits were based on
information obtained from non-GAO sources. Prior to fiscal year 2002, we
limited the period over which the benefits from an accomplishment could be
accrued to no more than 2 years. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, we
extended the period to 5 years for certain types of accomplishments known
to have multiyear effects, such as those associated with multiyear
reductions in longer term projects, changes embodied in law, program
terminations, or sales of government assets yielding multiyear financial
benefits. Financial benefits can be claimed for past or future years. In
addition, for financial benefits involving events that occur on a regular
but infrequent basis--such as the decennial census--we may extend the
measurement period until the event occurs in order to compute the
associated financial benefits using GAO's present value calculator.

Managing directors decide when their staff can claim financial benefits. A
managing director may choose to claim a financial benefit all in 1 year or
decide to claim it over several years, especially if the benefit spans
future years and the managing director wants greater precision as to the
amount of the benefit.

Data sources

Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure.
Teams use this Web-based data system to prepare, review, and approve
accomplishments and forward them to QCI for its review. Once
accomplishment reports are approved, they are compiled by QCI, which
annually tabulates total financial benefits agencywide and by goal.

Verification and validation

Our policies and procedures require us to use the Accomplishment Reporting
System to record the financial benefits that result from our work. They
also provide guidance on estimating those financial benefits. Each team
identifies when a financial benefit has occurred as a result of its work.
Generally, the team develops estimates based on non-GAO sources, such as
the agency that acted on our work, a congressional committee, or the
Congressional Budget Office, and files accomplishment reports based on
those estimates. The estimates are reduced by significant identifiable
offsetting costs. The team develops workpapers to support accomplishments
with evidence that meets our evidence standard, supervisors review the
workpapers, and an independent person within GAO reviews the
accomplishment report. The team's managing director or director is
authorized to approve financial accomplishment reports with benefits of
less than $100 million.

The team forwards the report to QCI, which reviews all accomplishment
reports and approves accomplishment reports claiming benefits of $100
million or more. QCI provides summary data on approved financial benefits
to unit managers, who check the data regularly to ensure that approved
accomplishments submitted by their staff have been accurately recorded.
Our Engagement Reporting System also contains accomplishment data for the
fiscal year. In fiscal year 2006, QCI approved accomplishment reports
covering 96 percent of the dollar value of financial benefits we reported.

Every year, our Office of Inspector General (IG) reviews accomplishment
reports that claim benefits of $500 million or more. In addition, on a
periodic basis, the IG independently tests compliance with our process for
claiming financial benefits of less than $500 million. For example, the IG
reviewed fiscal year 2006 financial benefits of $100 million or more. The
IG suggested clarification to certain policies for claiming financial
benefits and improvements to documenting accomplishment reports. We
clarified our guidance and will update our policy manual in fiscal year
2007.

Data limitations

Not every financial benefit from our work can be readily estimated or
documented as attributable to our work. As a result, the amount of
financial benefits is a conservative estimate. Estimates are based on
information from non-GAO sources and are based on both objective and
subjective data, and as a result, professional judgment is required in
reviewing accomplishment reports. We feel that the verification and
validation steps that we take minimize any adverse impact from this
limitation.

Nonfinancial Benefits

Definition and background

Our work--including our findings and recommendations--may produce benefits
to the federal government that cannot be estimated in dollar terms. These
nonfinancial benefits can result in better services to the public, changes
to statutes or regulations, or improved government business operations.
Nonfinancial benefits generally result from work that we completed over
the past several years.

Nonfinancial benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work
that we completed over several years. To claim that nonfinancial benefits
have been achieved, staff must file an accomplishment report documenting
that (1) the actions taken as a result of our work have been completed or
substantially completed, (2) the actions generally were taken within the
past 2 fiscal years of filing the accomplishment report, and (3) a
cause-and-effect relationship exists between the benefits reported and our
recommendation or work performed.

Data sources

Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure.
Teams use this automated system to prepare, review, and approve
accomplishments and forward them to QCI for its review. Once
accomplishment reports are approved, they are compiled by QCI, which
annually tabulates total nonfinancial benefits agencywide and by goal.

Verification and validation

Our policies and procedures require us to use the Accomplishment Reporting
System to record the nonfinancial benefits that result from our findings
and recommendations. Staff in the teams file accomplishment reports to
claim that benefits have resulted from their work. The team develops
workpapers to support accomplishments with evidence that meets our
evidence standard. Supervisors review the workpapers; an independent
person within GAO reviews the accomplishment report; and the team's
managing director or director approves the accomplishment report to ensure
the appropriateness of the claimed accomplishment, including attribution
to our work.

The team forwards the report to QCI, where it is reviewed for
appropriateness. QCI provides summary data on nonfinancial benefits to
unit managers, who check the data regularly to ensure that approved
accomplishments from their staff have been accurately recorded.
Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently tests compliance
with our process for claiming nonfinancial benefits. For example, the IG
tested this process in fiscal year 2005 and concluded it was reasonable.
The IG also suggested actions to strengthen documentation of our
nonfinancial benefits and to encourage the timely processing of the
supporting accomplishment reports.

Data limitations

The data may be underreported because we cannot always document a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between our work and benefits it produced.
However, we feel that this is not a significant limitation on the data
because the data represent a conservative measure of our overall
contribution toward improving government.

Percentage of Products with Recommendations

Definition and background

We measure the percentage of our written products (chapter and letter
reports and numbered correspondence) issued in the fiscal year that
included at least one recommendation. We make recommendations that specify
actions that can be taken to improve federal operations or programs. We
strive for recommendations that are directed at resolving the cause of
identified problems; that are addressed to parties who have the authority
to act; and that are specific, feasible, and cost-effective. Some products
we issue contain no recommendations and are strictly informational in
nature.

We track the percentage of our written products that are issued during the
fiscal year and contain recommendations. This indicator recognizes that
our products do not always include recommendations and that the Congress
and agencies often find such informational reports just as useful as those
that contain recommendations. For example, informational reports, which do
not contain recommendations, can help to bring about significant financial
and nonfinancial benefits.

Data sources

Our Documents Database records recommendations as they are issued. The
database is updated daily. As our staff monitor implementation of
recommendations, they submit updated information to the database.

Verification and validation

Through a formal process, each team identifies the number of
recommendations included in each product and an external contractor enters
them into a database. We provide our managers with reports on the
recommendations being tracked to help ensure that all recommendations have
been captured and that each recommendation has been completely and
accurately stated. Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently
tests the teams' compliance with our policies and procedures related to
this performance measure. For example, during fiscal year 2006, the IG
tested our process for determining the percentage of written products with
recommendations and concluded that it was reasonable. The IG also
suggested actions to improve the process for developing, compiling, and
reporting these statistics.

Data limitations

This measure is a conservative estimate of the extent to which we assist
the Congress and federal agencies because not all products and services we
provide lead to recommendations. For example, the Congress may request
information on federal programs that is purely descriptive or analytical
and does not lend itself to recommendations.

Past Recommendations Implemented

Definition and background

We make recommendations designed to improve the operations of the federal
government. For our work to produce financial or nonfinancial benefits,
the Congress or other federal agencies must implement these
recommendations. As part of our audit responsibilities under generally
accepted government auditing standards, we follow up on recommendations we
have made and report to the Congress on their status. Experience has shown
that it takes time for some recommendations to be implemented. For this
reason, this measure is the percentage rate of implementation of
recommendations made 4 years prior to a given fiscal year (e.g., the
fiscal year 2006 implementation rate is the percentage of recommendations
made in fiscal year 2002 products that were implemented by the end of
fiscal year 2006). Experience has shown that if a recommendation has not
been implemented within 4 years, it is not likely to be implemented.

This measure assesses action on recommendations made 4 years previously,
rather than the results of our activities during the fiscal year in which
the data are reported. For example, the cumulative percentage of
recommendations made in fiscal year 2002 that were implemented in the
ensuing years is as follows: 14 percent by the end of the first year
(fiscal year 2003), 31 percent by the end of the second year (fiscal year
2004), 46 percent by the end of the third year (fiscal year 2005), and 82
percent by the end of the fourth year (fiscal year 2006).

Data sources

Our Documents Database records recommendations as they are issued. The
database is updated daily. As our staff monitor implementation of
recommendations, they submit updated information to the database.

Verification and validation

Through a formal process, each team identifies the number of
recommendations included in each product, and an external contractor
enters them into a database.

Policies and procedures specify that our staff must verify, with
sufficient supporting documentation, that an agency's reported actions are
adequately being implemented. Staff update the status of the
recommendations periodically. To accomplish this, our staff may interview
agency officials, obtain agency documents, access agency databases, or
obtain information from an agency's Office of Inspector General.
Recommendations that are reported as implemented are reviewed by a senior
executive in the unit and by QCI.

Summary data are provided to the units that issued the recommendations.
The units check the data regularly to make sure the recommendations they
have reported as implemented have been accurately recorded. We also
provide the Congress access to a database with the status of
recommendations that have not been implemented, and we maintain a publicly
available database of open recommendations that is updated daily.

Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently tests our process
for calculating the percentage of recommendations implemented for a given
fiscal year. For example, the IG determined that our process was
reasonable for calculating the percentage of recommendations that had been
made in our fiscal year 2002 products and implemented by the end of fiscal
year 2006. The IG also suggested actions to improve the process for
developing, compiling, and reporting this statistic.

Data limitations

The data may be underreported because sometimes a recommendation may
require more than 4 years to implement. We also may not count cases in
which a recommendation is partially implemented. However, we feel that
this is not a significant limitation to the data because the data
represent a conservative measure of our overall contribution toward
improving government.

                                Client Measures

Testimonies

Definition and background

The Congress may ask us to testify at hearings on various issues.
Participation in hearings is one of our most important forms of
communication with the Congress, and the number of hearings at which we
testify reflects the importance and value of our institutional knowledge
in assisting congressional decision making. When multiple GAO witnesses
with separate testimonies appear at a single hearing, we count this as a
single testimony.

This measure does not include statements for the record that we prepare
for congressional hearings. This measure may be influenced by factors
other than the quality of our performance in any specific year. The number
of hearings held each year depends on the Congress's agenda, and the
number of times we are asked to testify may reflect congressional interest
in work in progress as well as work completed that year or the previous
year. We try to adjust our target to reflect cyclical changes in the
congressional schedule. We also outreach continually to our clients to
increase their awareness of our readiness to participate in hearings.

Data sources

The data on hearings at which we testify are compiled in our congressional
hearing system, which is managed by staff in our Congressional Relations
office.

Verification and validation

The units responding to requests for testimony are responsible for
entering data in the congressional hearing system. After a GAO witness has
testified at a hearing, our Congressional Relations office verifies that
the data in the system are correct and records the hearing as one at which
we testified. The Congressional Relations office provides weekly status
reports to unit managers, who check ensure the data are complete and
accurate. Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently examines
the process for recording the number of hearings at which we testified.
For example, the IG determined that our process for recording hearings
during fiscal year 2006 was reasonable.

Data limitations

None.

Timeliness

Definition and background

The likelihood that our products will be used is enhanced if they are
delivered when needed to support congressional and agency decision making.
To determine whether our products are timely, we compute the proportion of
favorable responses to questions related to timeliness from our electronic
client feedback survey. Because our products often have multiple
requesters, we often survey more than one congressional staff person per
product. Thus, we base our timeliness result on the surveys sent out for
key products issued during the fiscal year. We send a survey to key staff
working for the requesters of our testimony statements and a survey to
requesters of our more significant written products--specifically,
engagements assigned an interest level of "high" by our senior management
and those requiring an investment of 500 GAO staff days or more. One
question on each survey asks the respondent whether the product was
delivered on time. When a product that meets our survey criteria is
released to the public, we electronically send relevant congressional
staff an e-mail message containing a link to a survey. When this link is
accessed, the survey recipient is asked to respond to the questions using
a five-point scale--strongly agree, generally agree, neither agree nor
disagree, generally disagree, or strongly disagree--or choose "not
applicable/no answer." For this measure, favorable responses are "strongly
agree" and "generally agree."

Data sources

To identify the products that meet our survey criteria (all testimonies
and other products that are high interest or involve 500 staff days or
more), we run a query against GAO's Documents Database maintained by a
contractor. To identify appropriate recipients of the survey for products
meeting our criteria, we ask the engagement teams to provide in GAO's
Product Numbering Database e-mail addresses for congressional staff
serving as contacts on a product. Relevant information from both of these
databases is fed into our Product by Product Survey Approval Database that
is managed by QCI. This database then combines product, survey recipient,
and data from our Congressional Relations staff and creates an e-mail
message with a Web link to a survey. (Congressional Relations staff serve
as the GAO contacts for survey recipients.) The e-mail message also
contains an embedded client password and unique client identifier to
ensure that a recipient is linked with the appropriate survey. Our
Congressional Feedback Database creates a survey record with the product
title and number and captures the responses to every survey sent back to
us electronically.

Verification and validation

QCI staff review a hard copy of a released GAO product or access its
electronic version to check the accuracy of the addressee information in
the Product by Product Survey Approval Database. QCI staff also check the
congressional staff directory to ensure that survey recipients listed in
the Product by Product Survey Approval Database appear there. In addition,
our Congressional Relations staff review the list of survey recipients
entered by the engagement teams and identify the most appropriate
congressional staff person to receive a survey for each requester. Survey
e-mail messages that are inadvertently sent with incorrect e-mail
addresses automatically reappear in the survey approval system. When this
happens, QCI staff correct any obvious typing errors and resend the e-mail
message or contact the congressional staff person directly for the correct
e-mail address and then resend the message.

Data limitations

We do not measure the timeliness of all of our external products because
we do not wish to place too much burden on busy congressional staff.
Testimonies and written products that meet our criteria for this measure
represent more than 50 percent of the congressionally requested products
we issued during fiscal year 2006. We exclude from our timeliness measure
low- and medium-interest reports requiring fewer than 500 staff days to
complete, reports addressed to agency heads or commissions, some reports
mandated by the Congress, classified reports, and reports completed under
the Comptroller General's authority. Also, if a requester indicates that
he or she does not want to complete any surveys, we will not send a survey
to this person again, even though a product subsequently requested meets
our criteria. The response rate for our client feedback survey is about 28
percent. We received comments from one or more people for 53 percent of
the products for which we sent surveys.

                                People Measures

New Hire Rate

Definition and background

This performance measure is the ratio of the number of people hired to the
number we planned to hire. Annually, we develop a workforce plan that
takes into account projected workload changes as well as other changes,
such as retirements, other attrition, promotions, and skill gaps. The
workforce plan for the upcoming year specifies the number of planned hires
and specifies the skill type and the level for each new hire. The plan is
conveyed to each of our units to guide hiring throughout the year.
Progress toward achieving the workforce plan is monitored monthly by the
Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Administrative Officer. Adjustments
to the workforce plan are made throughout the year, if necessary, to
reflect changing needs and conditions.

Data sources

The Executive Committee approves the workforce plan. The workforce plan is
coordinated and maintained by the Chief Administrative Office. Data on
accessions--that is, new hires coming on board--is taken from a database
that contains employee data from the Department of Agriculture's National
Finance Center (NFC), which handles payroll and personnel data for GAO and
other agencies.

Verification and validation

The Chief Administrative Office maintains a database that monitors and
tracks all our hiring offers, declinations, and accessions. In
coordination with our Human Capital Office, our Chief Administrative
Office staff input workforce information supporting this measure into the
Chief Administrative Office database. While the database is updated each
day, monthly reports are provided to the Chief Operating Officer and the
Chief Administrative Officer so they can monitor progress by GAO units in
achieving workforce plan hiring targets. The Chief Administrative Office
continually monitors and reviews accessions maintained in the NFC data
against its database to ensure consistency and to resolve discrepancies.
The office follows up on any discrepancies. In addition, on a periodic
basis, the IG examines our process for calculating the new hire rate.
During fiscal year 2004, the IG independently reviewed this process and
found it to be reasonable. The IG also suggested actions to improve the
documentation of the process used to calculate this measure. We have
implemented the IG's suggestions.

Data limitations

There is a lag of one to two pay periods (up to 4 weeks) before the NFC
database reflects actual data. We generally allow sufficient time before
requesting data for this measure to ensure that we get accurate results.

Acceptance Rate

Definition and background

This measure is the ratio of the number of applicants accepting offers to
the number of offers made. Acceptance rate is a proxy for GAO's
attractiveness as an employer and an indicator of our competitiveness in
bringing in new talent.

Data sources

The information required is the number of job offers made (excluding those
for interns, experts/consultants, and reemployed annuitants), the number
of offers declined, and the number of individuals who come on board. Our
Chief Administrative Office staff maintain a database that contains the
job offers made and accepted or declined. Data on accessions--that is, new
hires coming on board--are taken from a database that contains employee
data from the Department of Agriculture's NFC, which handles payroll and
personnel data for GAO and other agencies.

Verification and validation

Human capital managers in the Human Capital Office work with the Chief
Administrative Office staff to ensure that each job offer made and its
outcome (declination or acceptance) is noted in the database that is
maintained by Chief Administrative Office staff; periodic checking is
performed to review the accuracy of the database. In addition, on a
periodic basis, the IG examines our process for calculating the acceptance
rate. During fiscal year 2004, the IG independently reviewed this process
and found it to be reasonable. The IG also suggested actions to improve
the documentation of the process used to calculate this measure and the
reporting of this measure. We have implemented the IG's suggestions.

Data limitations

See New hire rate, Data limitations.

Retention Rate

Definition and background

We continuously strive to make GAO a place where people want to work. Once
we have made an investment in hiring and training people, we would like to
retain them. This measure is one indicator that we are attaining that
objective and is the inverse of attrition. We calculate this measure by
taking 100 percent of the onboard strength minus the attrition rate, where
attrition rate is defined as the number of separations divided by the
average onboard strength. We calculate this measure with and without
retirements.

Data sources

Data on retention--that is, people who are on board at the beginning of
the fiscal year and are still here at the end of the fiscal year as well
as the average number of people on board during the year--are taken from a
Chief Administrative Office database that contains some data from NFC,
which handles payroll and personnel data for GAO and other agencies.

Verification and validation

Chief Administrative Office staff continually monitor and review
accessions and attritions against the contents of their database that
contains NFC data and follow up on any discrepancies. In addition, on a
periodic basis, the IG examines our process for calculating the retention
rate. During fiscal year 2004, the IG reviewed this process and found it
to be reasonable. The IG also suggested actions to improve the
documentation of the process used to calculate this measure. We have
implemented the IG's suggestions.

Data limitations

See New hire rate, Data limitations.

Staff Development

Definition and background

One way that we measure how well we are doing and identify areas for
improvement is through our annual employee feedback survey. This Web-based
survey, which is conducted by an outside contractor to ensure the
confidentiality of every respondent, is administered to all of our
employees once a year. Through the survey, we encourage our staff to
indicate what they think about GAO's overall operations, work environment,
and organizational culture and how they rate our managers--from immediate
supervisors to the Executive Committee--on key aspects of their leadership
styles. The survey consists of over 100 questions.

This measure is based on staff's favorable responses to three of the six
questions related to staff development on our annual employee survey. This
subset of questions was selected on the basis of senior management's
judgment about the questions' relevance to the measure and specialists'
knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked to respond to
three questions on a five-point scale or choose "no basis to judge/not
applicable" or "no answer."

Data sources

These data come from our staff's responses to an annual Web-based survey.
Two of the survey questions we used for this measure ask staff how much
positive or negative impact (1) external training and conferences and (2)
on-the-job training had on their ability to do their jobs during the last
12 months. From the staff who expressed opinions, we calculated the
percentage of staff selecting the two categories that indicate
satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this
measure, the favorable responses were either "very positive impact" or
"generally positive impact." In addition, one survey question asks staff
how useful and relevant internal (Learning Center) training courses are to
their work. From staff who expressed opinions, we calculated the
percentage of staff selecting the three categories that indicate
satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this
measure, the favorable responses were "very greatly useful and relevant,"
"greatly useful and relevant," and "moderately useful and relevant."

Verification and validation

The employee feedback survey gathers staff opinions on a variety of
topics. The survey is password protected, and only the outside contractor
has access to passwords. In addition, when the survey instrument was
developed, extensive focus groups and pretests were undertaken to refine
the questions and provide definitions as needed. We have historically
achieved a high response rate (over 80 percent) to the survey, which
indicates that its results are largely representative of the GAO
population. In addition, many teams and work units conduct follow-on work
to gain a better understanding of the information from the survey.

In addition, on a periodic basis, the IG independently examines our
process for calculating the percentage of favorable responses for staff
development. The IG examined this process during fiscal year 2004 and
found it to be reasonable. The IG also suggested actions to improve the
documentation of the process used to calculate this measure. We have
implemented the IG's suggestions.

Data limitations

The information contained in the survey is the self-reported opinions of
staff expressed under conditions of confidentiality. Accordingly, there is
no way to further validate those expressions of opinion.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. These errors could result
from, for example, respondents misinterpreting a question or data entry
staff incorrectly entering data into a database used to analyze the survey
responses. Such errors can introduce unwanted variability into the survey
results. We took steps in the development of the survey to minimize
nonsampling errors. Specifically, when we developed the survey instrument
we held extensive focus groups and pretests to refine the questions and
define terms used to decrease the chances that respondents would
misunderstand the questions. We also limited the chances of introducing
nonsampling errors by creating a Web-based survey for which respondents
entered their answers directly into an electronic questionnaire. This
approach eliminated the need to have the data keyed into a database by
someone other than the respondent, thus removing an additional source of
error.

Staff Utilization

Definition and background

This measure is based on staff's favorable responses to three of the six
questions related to staff utilization on our annual employee survey. This
subset of questions was selected on the basis of senior management's
judgment about the questions' relevance to the measure and specialists'
knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked to respond to
these three questions on a five-point scale or choose "no basis to
judge/not applicable" or "no answer." (For background information about
our entire employee feedback survey, see Staff development.)

Data sources

These data come from our staff's responses to an annual Web-based survey.
The survey questions we used for this measure ask staff how often the
following occurred in the last 12 months: (1) my job made good use of my
skills; (2) GAO provided me with opportunities to do challenging work; and
(3) in general, I was utilized effectively. From the staff who expressed
opinions, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the two
categories that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the
question. For this measure, the favorable responses were either "very
positive impact" or "generally positive impact."

Verification and validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Leadership

Definition and background

This measure is based on staff's favorable responses to 10 of 20 questions
related to six areas of leadership on our annual employee survey. This
subset of questions was selected on the basis of senior management's
judgment about the questions' relevance to the measure and specialists'
knowledge about the development of indexes. Specifically, our calculation
included responses to 1 of 4 questions related to empowerment, 2 of 4
questions related to trust, all 3 questions related to recognition, 1 of 3
questions related to decisiveness, 2 of 3 questions related to leading by
example, and 1 of 3 questions related to work life. Staff were asked to
respond to these 10 questions on a five-point scale or choose "no basis to
judge/not applicable" or "no answer." (For background information about
our entire employee feedback survey, see Staff development, Definition and
background.)

Data sources

These data come from our staff's responses to an annual Web-based survey.
The survey questions we used for this measure ask staff about empowerment,
trust, recognition, decisiveness, leading by example, and work life as
they pertain to the respondent's immediate supervisor. For example, we
looked at the responses related to specific qualities of our managers,
such as "My immediate supervisor gave me the opportunity to do what I do
best" and "My immediate supervisor provided meaningful incentives for high
performance." From the staff who expressed opinions, we calculated the
percentage of staff selecting the two categories that indicate
satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this
measure, the favorable responses were either "always or almost always" or
"most of the time."

Verification and validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Organizational Climate

Definition and background

This measure is based on staff's favorable responses to 5 of the 13
questions related to organizational climate on our annual employee survey.
This subset of questions was selected on the basis of senior management's
judgment about the questions' relevance to the measure and specialists'
knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked to respond to
these 5 questions on a five-point scale or choose "no basis to judge" or
"no answer." (For background information about our entire employee
feedback survey, see Staff development.)

Data sources

These data come from our staff's responses to an annual Web-based survey.
The survey questions we used for this measure ask staff to think back over
the last 12 months and indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with
each of the following statements: (1) a spirit of cooperation and teamwork
exists in my work unit; (2) I am treated fairly and with respect in my
work unit; (3) my morale is good; (4) sufficient effort is made in my work
unit to get the opinions and thinking of people who work here; and (5)
overall, I am satisfied with my job at GAO. From the staff who expressed
opinions, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the two
categories that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the
question. For this measure, the favorable responses were either "strongly
agree" or "generally agree."

Verification and validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation.

Data limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

                          Internal Operations Measures

Help Get Job Done and Quality of Work Life

Definition and background

From an annual employee survey, we calculate a composite score from
questions related to how well internal processes help employees get their
jobs done and how these processes affect employees' quality of work life.
To measure satisfaction with 31 internal administrative services and
solicit ideas on ways to improve them, we administer an annual survey that
asks employees to rate, on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), those services
that are important to them and that they have experience with or used
recently. Then, for each selected service, employees are asked to indicate
their level of satisfaction (from 1 to 5), and provide a written reason
for their rating and recommendations for improvement if desired. This
Web-based survey covers 21 work-related services and 10 quality of work
life areas and is conducted by an outside contractor.

Data sources

To determine how satisfied GAO employees are with internal operations, we
calculate composite scores for two measures. One measure reflects the
satisfaction with the 21 services that help employees get their jobs done.
These services include Internet and intranet services, IT customer
support, mail services, and voice communication services. The second
measure reflects satisfaction with another 10 services that affect quality
of work life. These services include assistance related to pay and
benefits, building maintenance and security, and workplace safety and
health. The composite score represents how employees rated their
satisfaction with services in each of these areas relative to how they
rated the importance of those services to them. The importance scores and
satisfaction levels are both rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Verification and validation

The survey is housed on a Web site maintained by an outside contractor,
and only the contractor has access to the password-protected results. We
analyze the results by demographic representation (unit, tenure, location,
band level, and job type) to ensure that the results are largely
representative of the GAO population. In addition, each GAO unit
responsible for administrative services conducts follow-on work, including
analyzing the written comments to gain a better understanding of the
information from the survey.

Data limitations

The information contained in the survey is self-contained. Therefore,
there is no information with which to validate the views expressed by
staff. We do not plan any actions to remedy this limitation because we
feel it would violate the pledge of confidentiality that we make to our
staff regarding the survey responses.

Program Evaluation

To assess our progress toward our first three strategic goals and their
objectives and to update them for our strategic plan, we evaluate actions
taken by federal agencies and the Congress in response to our
recommendations. The results of these evaluations are conveyed in our
performance and accountability report as financial benefits and
nonfinancial benefits that reflect the value of our work. In addition, we
actively monitor the status of our open recommendations--those that remain
valid but have not yet been implemented--and report our findings annually
to the Congress and the public ( http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html ).
We use the results of that analysis to determine the need for further work
in particular areas. For example, if an agency has not implemented a
recommended action that we consider worthwhile, we may decide to pursue
further action with agency officials or congressional committees, or we
may decide to undertake additional work on the matter.

We also use our biennial high-risk series to provide a status report on
those major government operations considered high risk because of their
vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or the need for
broad-based transformation. The series is a valuable evaluation and
planning tool because it helps us to identify those areas where our
continued efforts are needed to maintain the focus on important policy and
management issues that the nation faces. (See
www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/highrisk.html .)

In fiscal year 2006, we reviewed several of our performance measures to
ascertain whether the measures were effectively achieving desired results.
Because of this review, we modified our measure of timeliness and
eliminated as a measure the extent to which we have achieved our multiyear
qualitative performance goals. We plan to continue to study and refine our
performance measures when warranted. Examples of studies completed in
fiscal year 2006 are included in our performance and accountability
report.

During fiscal year 2008, we plan to obtain our second peer review of our
performance audits. We anticipate that this review--like the one in
2004--will be conducted by an international team representing national
audit offices. In addition, we plan to obtain a peer review of financial
audits. Among other things, these reviews will allow us to comply with
governmentwide auditing standards.

*** End of document. ***