GAO Performance and Accountability Highlights: Fiscal Year 2007  
(02-JAN-08, GAO-08-2SP).					 
                                                                 
This report presents the highlights of GAO's fiscal year 2007	 
Performance and Accountability Report. In fiscal year 2007 we	 
exceeded the targets for five of our six key performance	 
measures--financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, past	 
recommendations implemented, new products with recommendations,  
and testimonies--that gauge how well we produced results and	 
served our client, the Congress. With this level of performance  
we were able to achieve a return on investment for the American  
people of about $94 for every dollar the Congress gave us. We	 
also met or exceeded five of the eight targets we set for our	 
people measures--new hire rate, acceptance rate, retention rate  
with retirements, retention rate without retirements, and staff  
development. While these measures were largely similar to last	 
year's results, we missed the performance targets for staff	 
utilization, leadership, and organizational climate by 5, 1, and 
2 percentage points, respectively, in spite of the challenges we 
faced internally. While supporting the Congress's oversight	 
efforts with more than 1,200 reports and testimonies we issued	 
during the fiscal year, in November 2006, we sent a letter to the
incoming leadership of the new Congress suggesting three dozen	 
areas for additional oversight. The challenge before us in	 
serving the Congress and the nation is to help maintain a	 
government that is effective, transparent, and relevant for this 
generation and generations to come. GAO will continue to "lead by
example" in transforming government while providing the most	 
professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological,
fair, and balanced information possible to the Congress and the  
American people.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-2SP 					        
    ACCNO:   A79990						        
  TITLE:     GAO Performance and Accountability Highlights: Fiscal    
Year 2007							 
     DATE:   01/02/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Agency missions					 
	     Cost control					 
	     Financial management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Productivity in government 			 
	     Quality control					 
	     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-08-2SP
[Beginning of Front Cover] 

GAO: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Performance and Accountability Highlights: 

Fiscal Year 2007: 

Serving the Congress and the Nation: 

Accountability: 

Reliability: 

Integrity: 

[End of Front Cover] 

Serving The Congress: 

GAOï¿½S Mission: 

GAO exists 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. 

Accountability: 

We help the Congress oversee federal programs and operations to ensure 
accountability to the American people. GAOï¿½s analysts, auditors, 
lawyers, economists, information technology specialists, investigators, 
and other multidisciplinary professionals seek to enhance the economy, 
efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the federal government 
both in fact and in the eyes of the American people. 

Integrity: 

We set high standards for ourselves in the conduct of GAO's work. Our 
agency takes a professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, 
nonideological, fair, and balanced approach to all activities. 
Integrity is the foundation of reputation, and GAO's people and 
approach to its work, are designed to ensure both. 

Reliability: 

We at GAO want our work to be viewed by the Congress and the American 
public as reliable. We produce high quality reports, testimony, 
briefings, legal opinions, and other products and services that are 
timely, accurate, useful, clear, and candid. 

Scope Of Work: 

GAO performs a range of oversight-, insight-, and foresight-related 
engagements, a vast majority of which are conducted in response to 
congressional mandates or requests. GAOï¿½s engagements include 
evaluations of federal programs; performance, financial and management 
audits; policy analyses; legal opinions; bid protest adjudications; and 
investigations. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Serving the Congress] 

Contents: 

From the Comptroller General: 

About GAO: 

GAO's Performance: 

GAO's High-Risk Program: 

Resource Issues and Management Challenges: 

From the Chief Financial Officer: 

Overview of Financial Management and Controls: 

GAO's Financial Statements: 

Independent Auditor's Report: 

From the Inspector General: 

[End of Contents] 

From the Comptroller General: 

Figure: Photograph of the Comptroller General of the United States, 
David M. Walker: 

[See PDF for Image of Comptroller General] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Picture of Comptroller General] 

January 2008: 

I am pleased to present the highlights of our performance and 
accountability report for fiscal year 2007. We accomplished a great 
deal for the Congress and the American people with the resources we 
received. We continued to focus our efforts on increasing the 
transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of federal 
operations by giving the Congress and the public the information they 
need to ensure that the federal government makes prudent decisions both 
now and in the future. We performed our work in accordance with our 
strategic plan for serving the Congress, guided by our core values, and 
consistent with applicable professional standards. You can be assured 
that the information in this report is complete and reliable and meets 
GAO's high standards. 

In fiscal year 2007 we exceeded the targets for five of our six key 
performance measures--financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, past 
recommendations implemented, new products with recommendations, and 
testimonies--that gauge how well we produced results and served our 
client, the Congress. With this level of performance we were able to 
achieve a return on investment for the American people of about $94 for 
every dollar the Congress gave us. Specifically, we recorded $45.9 
billion in financial benefits from our work and 1,354 nonfinancial 
benefits, which helped improve government operations and better serve 
the public. We also documented that the Congress and federal agencies 
implemented 82 percent of the recommendations we made 4 years ago and 
that 66 percent of the new products we issued during the fiscal year 
contained recommendations that in time should have a positive impact on 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government. Moreover, 
this was a banner year for us in testimonies. Our senior executives and 
I delivered testimonies at 276 hearings, 36 more hearings than in 
fiscal year 2006. In fact, our performance on this measure is the 
fourth highest over the last 25 years and an all-time high for us on a 
per capita basis. Though we issued our products on time 94 percent of 
the time, we fell short on our timeliness measure by 1 percentage 
point, just shy of our 95 percent target. 

We also met or exceeded five of the eight targets we set for our people 
measures--new hire rate, acceptance rate, retention rate with 
retirements, retention rate without retirements, and staff development. 
While these measures were largely similar to last year's results, we 
missed the performance targets for staff utilization, leadership, and 
organizational climate by 5, 1, and 2 percentage points, respectively, 
in spite of the challenges we faced internally. These challenges 
included meeting tight deadlines and being responsive to our clients 
when demand for our work was extremely high and budgetary and staffing 
resources were extremely constrained. During fiscal year 2007, we also 
had to manage a large workload in the wake of significant human capital 
transformation efforts and other changes within our agency, including a 
union organizing campaign spanning many months. 

While supporting the Congress's oversight efforts with more than 1,200 
reports and testimonies we issued during the fiscal year, in November 
2006, we sent a letter to the incoming leadership of the new Congress 
suggesting three dozen areas for additional oversight. In addition, we 
welcomed the new congressional Members in January with several special 
publications to help them make the transition to their responsibilities 
as stewards of the federal purse. All of these publications--Fiscal 
Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation (GAO-07-362SP, 
January 2007); Understanding Similarities and Differences between 
Accrual and Cash Deficits (GAO-07-117SP, December 2006); and 
Understanding the Primary Components of the Annual Financial Report of 
the United States Government (GAO-05-958SP, September 2005)--are 
available through our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 
Though we received a clean opinion on GAO's own financial statements, 
the federal government's books are not yet in order and will require 
focused leadership and sustained attention to get them there, 
especially in connection with the Department of Defense. 

The Congress needs information to make sound judgments that will 
benefit this nation in the short term and over the long run. Thus, to 
further assist our client with its oversight function and aid its 
insight and foresight, we revised our list of federal programs and 
areas at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and in need of 
broad-based transformation and issued our biennial report card called 
High-Risk Series: An Update (GAO-07-310, January 2007). We continue to 
do this work to bring visibility and urgency to these areas and to 
prompt needed actions sooner rather than later. I also continued to 
speak around the country about the fiscal condition and long-term 
fiscal outlook of our country as part of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour 
sponsored by the Concord Coalition--a nationwide, nonpartisan, 
grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about the 
consequences of fiscal deficits and promoting a generationally 
responsible fiscal policy. The tour also involves the Brooking 
Institution and the Heritage Foundation and a range of other 
organizations. To date, the tour has held events in 25 states and the 
District of Columbia reaching thousands of people. The purpose of this 
effort is to state the facts and speak the truth about the fiscal 
challenges that this country faces, increase public awareness about the 
consequences, and help create the impetus and support for appropriate 
federal, state, and local officials to take much needed and long 
overdue action. 

Closer to home, we updated our strategic plan to guide our own actions 
in the near future and ensure that we have the foresight needed to 
support the Congress. Our strategic plan includes bodies of work that 
address anticipated requests for evaluations of current and emerging 
issues and anticipated work related to government transformation 
efforts, especially in the areas of homeland security and defense. 
Seven broad themes provide the context for our strategic plan and we 
describe them in detail in Forces That Will Shape America's Future: The 
Themes from GAO's Strategic Plan (GAO-07-467SP, March 2007). We believe 
these themes will shape the many requests and mandates we expect to 
receive from the Congress over the next 3 years as well as the work we 
plan to do under my statutory authority as Comptroller General of the 
United States. 

An effective, transparent government requires a first-rate workforce 
and one of our agencywide goals is to create a model federal agency and 
world-class professional services organization. We want to continue to 
attract staff from a variety of disciplines who can gather the facts 
and develop innovative solutions to both old and new problems 
challenging the federal government. Thus, in fiscal year 2007 we 
improved our recruiting and hiring practices by clarifying our hiring 
goals and making it a priority to aggressively recruit at select 
colleges and universities. We also instituted an executive exchange 
program to help us tap talent outside of the federal government for 
short-term projects. In addition, we began a professional development 
program for entry-level administrative and professional support staff 
(similar to our development program for analyst staff), initiated a 
formal mentoring program, and continued to support employees working 
flexible schedules and telecommuting to help them balance the demands 
of work and home. I am very proud to say that we rated second among 
large federal agencies on the Partnership for Public Service's list of 
the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government for 2007, up from 
fourth place in 2005. Furthermore, in September 2007 we were named as 
one of Washington's top 60 employers by Washingtonian magazine. 

However, not all of our human capital initiatives have been easy--or 
without controversy, especially the 2006 restructuring of our midlevel 
(Band II) analyst workforce. Reforms that affect an employee's pay and 
job classification tend to be very controversial and this is 
particularly true in a workforce like ours that is highly educated and, 
by training and disposition, highly skeptical and analytical. In May 
2007 I testified at oversight hearings to discuss changes we made to 
many of our human capital policies and procedures over the last several 
years and other related issues. For example, employees' pay and 
compensation are now more directly tied to the market and to achieving 
results--measurable outcomes that further the agency's mission. Also, 
jobs for our employees are classified according to employees' roles and 
responsibilities, and pay is based on employees' jobs as well as market-
based conditions and their performance rather than longevity on the 
job. We believe we are the first major federal agency to adopt such an 
approach on an agencywide basis. At the same time, due to my concern 
regarding the trends in ratings differences associated with our 
performance appraisals over time, we also contracted with a private 
firm to assess the possible reasons for the differences and make 
related recommendations. 

For some staff, these changes are unsettling; thus listening and 
responding to employees' concerns and comments are particularly 
important during this time of change. I and the other executives 
encouraged employees to provide their input about the changes taking 
place and the direction the agency is headed--and we heard them. During 
fiscal year 2007, we made certain adjustments to our annual pay 
parameters and I proposed legislation known as the Government 
Accountability Office Act of 2007, which, if passed, will benefit our 
existing employees and will serve to further enhance our ability to 
attract, retain, and reward a top-flight workforce. For example, under 
one provision of the act, employees below the senior executive level 
would be able to include the bonus part of their performance awards in 
their high-three average salary for retirement purposes, which is not 
currently possible. 

We hope to work through these human capital issues and our other 
management challenges related to physical and information security in 
collaboration with the agency's recently elected employees' union, the 
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which 
will serve as the exclusive representative of entry and midlevel 
analysts as well as other employees in dealing with management on 
issues related to their terms and conditions of employment. I and the 
rest of management will bargain in good faith with the union and hope 
to reach timely agreements on issues of mutual interest and concern. 

The challenge before us in serving the Congress and the nation is to 
help maintain a government that is effective, transparent, and relevant 
for this generation and generations to come. This agency has never 
wavered in its belief that the Congress and the public deserve to be 
fully informed about all major aspects of government operations. I am 
committed to ensuring that we will continue to "lead by example" in 
transforming government while providing the most professional, 
objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced 
information possible to the Congress and the American people. 

Signed by: 

David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 

[End of Letter From the Comptroller General] 

About GAO: 

We exist 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. 

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. 

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 31 U.S.C. 3512 (commonly 
referred to as the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act), the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the Federal 
Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996.[Footnote 1] 

Accordingly, this performance and accountability report for fiscal year 
2006 supplies what we consider to be information that is at least 
equivalent to that supplied by executive branch agencies in their 
annual performance and accountability reports. 

We accomplish our mission by providing reliable information and 
informed analysis to the Congress, to federal agencies, and to 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. These are described on the inside front cover of this report. 

To accomplish our mission, we use a strategic planning and management 
process that is based on a hierarchy of four elements--strategic goals, 
strategic objectives, performance goals, and key efforts. Our strategic 
plan framework, shown in figure 1 on page 8, outlines our four 
strategic goals and 21 strategic objectives--the two highest levels in 
the hierarchy--that guided our work during fiscal year 2006. 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 (see fig. 2). The 
fourth goal is our only internal one and is aimed at maximizing our 
productivity. Complete 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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Throughout GAO, 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. 

The pages that follow offer highlights of our performance and 
accountability report for fiscal year 2006. We also present our 
condensed financial statements and the independent auditor's opinion on 
them. If you would like additional information, please see our full 
performance and accountability report and other performance-related 
documents at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/sp.html]. 

GAO Field Locations: 

Atlanta: 
Boston: 
Chicago: 
Dallas: 
Dayton: 
Denver: 
Huntsville: 
Los Angeles: 
Norfolk: 
San Francisco: 
Seattle: 

Figure 1: GAO's Strategic Plan Framework: 

Serving the Congress and the Nation: GAO's Strategic Plan Framework: 

Mission: 

GAO exists 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. 

Themes: 

* Long-Term Fiscal Imbalance; 

* National Security; 

* Global Interdependence; 

* Changing Economy; 

* Demographics; 

* Science and Technology; 

* Quality of Life; 

* Governance; 

Goals and Objectives: 

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 related to... 

* Health care needs and financing; 

* Education and protection of children; 

* Work opportunities and worker protection; 

* Retirement income security; 

* Effective system of justice; 

* Viable communities; 

* Natural resources use and environmental protection; 

* Physical infrastructure; 

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal 
Government to... 

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 
Interdependence involving... 

* Emerging threats; 

* Military capabilities and readiness; 

* Advancement of U.S. interests; 

* Global market forces; 

Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How It Does 
Business to Meet 21st Century Challenges by assessing... 

* Roles in achieving federal objectives; 

* Government transformation; 

* Key management challenges and program risks; 

* Fiscal position and financing of the government; 

Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency and a World- 
Class Professional Services Organization in the areas of... 

* Client and customer satisfaction; 

* Strategic leadership; 

* Institutional knowledge and experience; 

* Process improvement; 

* Employer of choice: 

Core Values: 

* Accountability; 

* Integrity; 

* Reliability; 

GAO's Strategic Plan 2007-2012. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of GAO's Strategic Plan Framework] 

Figure 2: Examples of How GAO Assisted the Nation: 

Strategic Goal 1; 
Description: 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; 
In fiscal year 2007, GAO provided information that helped to: 
* highlight ways to address problems affecting the delivery of health 
and disability services for injured soldiers and veterans; 
* improve the Food and Drug Administration's process for removing 
dangerous drugs from the marketplace; 
* identify physician practice patterns to improve efficiency in the 
Medicare program; 
* encourage the preservation of affordable housing; 
* identify Food Stamp Program areas vulnerable to payment errors and 
fraud; 
* improve the Small Business Administration's timely delivery of 
disaster assistance; 
* outline various approaches used in the United States and abroad to 
negotiate drug prices; 
* assess the housing needs of low-income veterans; 
* focus attention on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's premium 
structure; 
* evaluate the Federal Housing Administration's role and modernizing 
efforts; 
* increase knowledge sharing about federal and state efforts to improve 
older driver safety; 
* highlight inadequacies in the management of federal oil and gas 
royalties; 
* raise awareness about the financial risks to the insurance industry 
posed by climate change; 
* improve transportation efficiency. 

Strategic Goal 2; 
Description: Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the 
federal government to respond to changing security threats and the 
challenges of global interdependence; 
In fiscal year 2007, GAO provided information that helped to: 
* identify key issues for congressional oversight of U.S. efforts to 
stabilize and rebuild Iraq; 
* improve the transparency of military compensation costs; 
* promote federal efforts to secure sensitive information; 
* alert the Congress to cost and schedule risks affecting major weapon 
systems; 
* identify the need for a Chief Management Officer to improve the 
Department of Defense's business processes; 
* highlight challenges with securing energy commodity carrying tankers 
from terrorist attacks; 
* strengthen security at airport passenger screening checkpoints; 
* identify shortcomings in the Department of Homeland Security's 
program to track the visa status of visitors and immigrants to the 
United States; 
* improve licensing procedures for radioactive materials; 
* enhance the sharing of federal homeland security information with 
states and localities; 
* contribute to congressional dialogue on the U.S. food aid provisions 
of the 2007 Farm bill; 
* improve oversight and procurement practices at the United Nations; 
* improve financial literacy in the United States; 
* better protect consumers who purchase title insurance; 
* improve the financial supervision of holding companies. 

Strategic Goal 3; 
Description: Help transform the federal government's role and how it 
does business to meet 21st century challenges; 
In fiscal year 2007, GAO provided information that helped to: 
* identify the risks of relying on military and homeland security 
contractors; 
* uncover fraud, waste, and abuse in financial assistance payments to 
people affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita; 
* promote a coordinated approach to improving standards and educating 
professionals in the accountability community; 
* identify multiple approaches needed to reduce the tax gap; 
* enlighten the public about the nation's long-term fiscal challenges; 
* inform the Congress about the status of recovery and rebuilding 
efforts in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita; 
* enhance national preparedness for an influenza pandemic; 
* gauge agencies' progress with implementing the Freedom of Information 
Act; 
* ensure that individuals' personal information is protected; 
* summarize progress and challenges and identify federal financial 
implications of rebuilding the Gulf Coast; 
* strengthen the Department of Defense's business systems modernization 
program; 
* strengthen the oversight of an environmental satellite program. 

Strategic Goal 4; 
Description: Maximize the value of GAO by being a model federal agency 
and a world-class professional services organization; 
In fiscal year 2007, GAO provided information that helped to: 
* inform the Congress and the public through our strategic plan about 
the forces that are likely to shape our nation's future, its place in 
the world, and the changing role of the federal government; 
* develop and implement the Financial Audit System--an automated tool 
used to audit the financial statements of executive branch agencies. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Examples of How GAO Assisted the Nation] 

[End of About GAO] 

GAO's Performance: 

The work we did in fiscal year 2007, as well as some of our past work, 
contributed greatly to our performance on our results and client 
measures shown in table 1. We surpassed our financial benefits target 
of $40 billion by almost $6 billion this fiscal year and exceeded our 
annual target for nonfinancial benefits by about 23 percent. Our 
financial benefits of $45.9 billion represent about a $94 return on 
every dollar invested in us. Also, the more than 1,300 nonfinancial 
benefits resulting from our work helped to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of government programs that serve the public. 

Table 1: Agencywide Summary of Annual Measures and Targets: 

Performance Measure: Results: Financial benefits (dollars in billions); 
2003: Actual: $35.4 billion; 
2004: Actual: $44.0 billion; 
2005: Actual: $39.6 billion; 
2006: Actual: $51.0 billion; 
2007: Target: $40.0 billion; 
2007: Actual: $45.9 billion; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: $40.0[A].  

Performance Measure: Results: Nonfinancial benefits; 
2003: Actual: 1,043; 
2004: Actual: 1,197; 
2005: Actual: 1,409; 
2006: Actual: 1,342; 
2007: Target: 1,100; 
2007: Actual: 1,354; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 1,150. 

Performance Measure: Results: Past recommendations implemented; 
2003: Actual: 82%; 
2004: Actual: 83%; 
2005: Actual: 85%; 
2006: Actual: 82%; 
2007: Target: 80%; 
2007: Actual: 82%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 80%. 

Performance Measure: Results: New products with recommendations; 
2003: Actual: 55%; 
2004: Actual: 63%; 
2005: Actual: 63%; 
2006: Actual: 65%; 
2007: Target: 60%; 
2007: Actual: 66%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 60%. 

Performance Measure: Client: Testimonies; 
2003: Actual: 189; 
2004: Actual: 217; 
2005: Actual: 179; 
2006: Actual: 240; 
2007: Target: 185; 
2007: Actual: 276; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 220. 

Performance Measure: Client: Timeliness[B]; 
2003: Actual: N/A[C]; 
2004: Actual: 89%; 
2005: Actual: 90%; 
2006: Actual: 92%; 
2007: Target: 95%; 
2007: Actual: 94%; 
Met/Not met: Not Met; 
2008: Target: 95%. 

Performance Measure: People: New hire rate; 
2003: Actual: 98%; 
2004: Actual: 98%; 
2005: Actual: 94%; 
2006: Actual: 94%; 
2007: Target: 95%; 
2007: Actual: 96%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 95%. 

Performance Measure: People: Acceptance rate; 
2003: Actual: 72%; 
2004: Actual: 72%; 
2005: Actual: 71%; 
2006: Actual: 70%; 
2007: Target: 72%; 
2007: Actual: 72%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 72%. 

Performance Measure: People: Retention rate: With retirements; 
2003: Actual: 92%; 
2004: Actual: 90%; 
2005: Actual: 90%; 
2006: Actual: 90%; 
2007: Target: 90%; 
2007: Actual: 90%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 90%. 

Performance Measure: People: Retention rate: Without retirements; 
2003: Actual: 96%; 
2004: Actual: 95%; 
2005: Actual: 94%; 
2006: Actual: 94%; 
2007: Target: 94%; 
2007: Actual: 94%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 94%.  

Performance Measure: People: Staff development; 
2003: Actual: 67%; 
2004: Actual: 70%; 
2005: Actual: 72%; 
2006: Actual: 76%; 
2007: Target: 75%; 
2007: Actual: 76%; 
Met/Not met: Met; 
2008: Target: 76%. 

Performance Measure: People: Staff utilization[D]; 
2003: Actual: 71%; 
2004: Actual: 72%; 
2005: Actual: 75%; 
2006: Actual: 75%; 
2007: Target: 78%; 
2007: Actual: 73%; 
Met/Not met: Not Met; 
2008: Target: 75%[C]. 

Performance Measure: People: Leadership; 
2003 Actual: 78%; 
2004 Actual: 79%; 
2005 Actual: 80%; 
2006: Actual: 79%; 
2007: Target: 80%; 
2007: Actual: 79%; 
Met/Not met: Not Met; 
2008: Target: 80%. 

Performance Measure: People: Organizational climate; 
2003: Actual: 71%; 
2004: Actual: 74%; 
2005: Actual: 76%; 
2006: Actual: 73%; 
2007: Target: 76%; 
2007: Actual: 74%; 
Met/Not met: Not Met; 
2008: Target: 75%[F]. 

Performance Measure: Internal operations[G]: Help get job done; 
2003: Actual: 3.98; 
2004: Actual: 4.01; 
2005: Actual: 4.10; 
2006: Actual: 4.10; 
2007: Target: 4.00; 
2007: Actual: N/A[C]; 
Met/Not met: N/A[C]; 
2008: Target: 4.00. 

Performance Measure: Internal operations[G]: Quality of work life; 
2003: Actual: 3.86; 
2004: Actual: 3.96; 
2005: Actual: 3.98; 
2006: Actual: 4.00; 
2007: Target: 4.00; 
2007: Actual: N/A; 
Met/Not met: N/A; 
2008: Target: 4.00. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Information explaining all of the measures included in this table 
appears on pages 78 to 93 in the Data Quality and Program Evaluations 
section in part II of our full report. 

[A] Our fiscal year 2008 target for financial benefits differs from the 
target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 performance 
budget in January 2007. Specifically, we decreased our financial 
benefits target by $1.5 billion based on (1) our assessment of our past 
recommendations that are likely to be implemented by federal agencies 
and the Congress in the coming fiscal year and (2) the impact that our 
constrained budget could have on the work that leads to financial 
benefits. 

[B] Since 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. 

[C] N/A indicates that the data are not available yet or are not 
applicable because we did not collect the data during this period. 

[D] Our employee feedback survey asks staff how often the following 
occurred in the last 2 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. 

[E] Our fiscal year 2008 target for staff utilization differs from the 
target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 performance 
budget in January 2007. We lowered the staff utilization target by 
percentage points because we determined that based on our past 
performance, the target was unrealistic, and we reset it at a level 
that is still challenging but more likely to be achieved. 

[F] Our fiscal year 2008 target for organizational climate differs from 
the target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 
performance budget in January 2007. We decreased the organizational 
climate target by percentage point because we determined that based on 
our past performance, the target was unrealistic, and we reset it at a 
level that is still challenging but more likely to be achieved. 

[G] For our internal operations measures, we will report actual data 
for fiscal year 2007 once data from our November 2007 internal customer 
satisfaction survey have been analyzed. Information explaining all of 
the measures included in this table appears in the Data Quality and 
Program Evaluations section in part II of our full report.

[End of table] 

Results Measures: 

Focusing on outcomes and the efficiency of the processes needed to 
achieve them is fundamental to accomplishing our mission. The following 
measures indicate that we have fulfilled our mission and delivered 
results that benefit the nation. 

Financial Benefits and Nonfinancial Benefits: 

We describe many of the results produced by our work as either 
financial or nonfinancial benefits. Both types of benefits result from 
our efforts to provide information to the Congress that helped to (1) 
change laws and regulations, (2) improve services to the public, and 
(3) promote sound agency and governmentwide management. In many cases, 
the benefits we claimed in fiscal year 2007 are based on work we did in 
past years because it often takes the Congress and agencies time to 
implement our recommendations or to act on our findings. 

Financial Benefits: 

Our findings and recommendations produce measurable financial benefits 
for the federal government after the Congress acts on or agencies 
implement them and the funds are made available to reduce government 
expenditures or are reallocated to other areas. The monetary effect 
realized can be the result of changes in: 

* business operations and activities; 

* the structure of federal programs; or: 

* entitlements, taxes, or user fees. 

Financial benefits result if, for example, the Congress were to reduce 
the annual cost of operating a federal program or lessen the cost of a 
multiyear program or entitlement. Financial benefits could also result 
from increases in federal revenues--because of changes in laws, user 
fees, or asset sales--that our work helped to produce. 

Financial benefits included in our performance measures are net 
benefits--that is, estimates of financial benefits that have been 
reduced by the 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. To ensure conservative estimates of net financial benefits, 
reductions in operating cost are typically limited to 2 years of 
accrued reductions, but up to 5 fiscal years of financial benefits can 
be claimed if the reductions are sustained over a period longer than 2 
years. Multiyear reductions in long-term projects, changes in tax laws, 
program terminations, or sales of government assets are limited to 5 
years. Estimates come from non-GAO sources. These non-GAO sources are 
typically the agency that acted on our work, a congressional committee, 
or the Congressional Budget Office. 

To document financial benefits, our staff complete reports documenting 
accomplishments that are linked to specific products or actions. All 
accomplishment reports for financial benefits are documented and 
reviewed by (1) another GAO staff member not involved in the work and 
(2) a senior executive in charge of the work. Also, a separate unit, 
our Quality and Continuous Improvement office, reviews all financial 
benefits and approves benefits of $100 million or more, which amounted 
to about 94 percent of the total dollar value of benefits recorded in 
fiscal year 2007. The GAO Inspector General (IG) also performed an 
independent review of all accomplishment reports claiming benefits of 
$500 million or more in fiscal year 2007. 

Figure 3 lists several of our major financial benefits for fiscal year 
2007 and briefly describes some of our work contributing to financial 
benefits. 

Figure 3: GAO's Selected Major Financial Benefits Reported in Financial 
Year 2007: 

Description: Helped to ensure funding for United States Postal Service 
(USPS) retirement-related health care benefits. For many years we have 
reported on USPS's significant liabilities and obligations, including 
tens of billions of dollars in post-retirement health care benefits 
that were not yet funded. In December 2006, the Postal Accountability 
and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. No. 109-435) was enacted, which created 
the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund into which USPS is to 
make a series of 10 annual payments to fund its retiree health care 
obligations. In fiscal year 2007, USPS made the first of its annual 
payments into the fund. This $5.4 billion payment, funded through 
additional January 2006 and May 2007 postal service rate increases, 
helped to avoid requiring the federal government to finance this 
substantial obligation. (Goal 3); 
Amount: $5.4. 

Description: Improved the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) methodology 
for pursuing delinquent taxes. Our previous financial audit work 
determined that IRS did not have systems or procedures in place to 
allow it to identify and actively pursue cases with collection 
potential. We recommended that IRS improve its capacity to assess the 
collectibility of delinquent taxes as a way to better target debt 
collection resources. In 2004, IRS began implementing sophisticated 
modeling technology to differentiate between more and less productive 
cases in order to make better resource allocation decisions. In 2007, 
we reported that IRS's actions in response to our recommendations 
increased its collections of delinquent taxes using approximately the 
same level of resources by about $4.2 billion or almost 20 percent in 
fiscal year 2006 from fiscal year 2003 levels. (Goal 3); 
Amount: $4.2. 

Description: Encouraged the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration's (NASA) decision to terminate the space launch 
initiative (SLI). In a September 2002 report, we questioned NASA's 
overall acquisition strategy to develop a new generation of space 
transportation vehicles--the SLI. We reported that NASA faced 
considerable challenges defining basic requirements for SLI. We also 
noted that most of the key technologies under consideration by SLI were 
very immature and that management controls necessary to estimate cost 
and gauge progress were not in place. We recommended that the NASA 
Administrator take several steps, including completing the reassessment 
of NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan, before moving forward 
with SLI. NASA concurred and in November 2002 took action to delay 
decisions regarding future launch vehicles and refocused SLI on 
conducting basic research on advanced launch technologies and 
developing a vehicle to service the International Space Station. In 
2005, NASA terminated the entire SLI program and redirected $3.7 
billion in funding originally programmed for SLI toward future 
exploration activities. (Goal 3); 
Amount: $3.7. 

Description: Helped to reduce food stamp fraud and abuse. Since 1994, 
we repeatedly reported and testified on reducing fraud and abuse in the 
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Stamp Program by reducing the 
trafficking of benefits. In our 1994 and 1995 reports, we found that 
USDA's reliance on paper coupons to provide food stamp benefits had 
resulted in fraud and abuse through trafficking, counterfeiting, and 
mail theft. To reduce this fraud and abuse, we supported the use of 
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems to replace the coupon-based 
system that states were using. In response, the Congress passed 
legislation that required that each state implement EBT for the Food 
Stamp Program by October 1, 2002, unless the Secretary of Agriculture 
granted a waiver. USDA reported in December 2006 that the Food Stamp 
Program's integrity had substantially improved, estimating that 
trafficking had diverted only about $241 million per year between 2002 
and 2005--or about 1 cent of each food stamp dollar--compared with an 
estimated $660 million per year--or about 3-1/2 cents of each food 
stamp dollar--diverted between 1996 and 1998. USDA found that the 
decline in food stamp trafficking corresponded with the increased use 
of EBT. This will result in an estimated $3.4 billion in cumulative 
financial benefits between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. Also, in fiscal 
year 2007 we recommended that USDA use its electronic data to perform 
risk assessments of retailers most likely to traffic in food stamp 
benefits and develop a strategy to increase penalties for this offense. 
USDA responded by proposing new penalties and expedited processes. 
(Goal 1); 
Amount: $3.4. 

Description: Recommended that the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) track and reallocate unspent housing funds. We 
recorded about $2.19 billion in financial benefits based on our work 
involving the HUD recaptured fiscal year 2005 unexpended balances. 
Prior to 2002 HUD did not routinely review its unexpended fund balances 
to determine whether these funds could be recaptured. In 2001, we 
expressed concerns over unexpended balances in a briefing to the 
incoming Administration and testified before the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Transportation, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and 
Urban Affairs, about long-standing problems HUD had in the management 
and oversight of its unexpended balances. Using the Public Housing 
Capital fund as an example, we stated, and HUD agreed, that it did not 
have the information it needed to routinely quantify unexpended 
balances that might be available for recapture. Given the importance of 
this information in formulating and justifying budget requests, we 
recommended that HUD (1) develop systems that routinely provide timely 
and reliable information on the status of its unexpended balances to 
quantify amounts available for recapture or rescission, (2) incorporate 
this information into the management of its programs, and (3) use this 
information in formulating budget requests. In response to our 
recommendations, HUD made many operational changes that since 2002 have 
enabled the agency to routinely incorporate information on unexpended 
balances into the management and operation of its programs and to take 
unexpended balances into account in setting forth budget needs. HUD has 
routinely recaptured unutilized funds to offset its budget requests. 
(Goal 1); 
Amount: $2.19. 

Description: Helped to increase collections of civil debt. In July 
2001, we reported that the Department of Justice's (Justice) financial 
litigation units, which are responsible for both criminal and civil 
debt collection, did not have adequate procedures for enforcing 
collections. We made a number of recommendations to the Attorney 
General to help the units improve criminal debt collections and stem 
the growth in reported uncollected criminal debt. One such 
recommendation was to reinforce policies and procedures for entering 
cases into debt-tracking systems; filing liens; issuing demand letters, 
delinquent notices, and default notices; performing asset discovery 
work; and using other enforcement techniques. These policies and 
procedures are applicable to the units' civil as well as criminal debt 
collection efforts. In January 2002, Justice completed actions to 
address this recommendation, including providing training materials to 
unit staff involved in debt collection. These actions helped it to 
increase collections of civil debt in fiscal years 2004 and 2005--the 
third and fourth years for which we are claiming financial benefits 
over a 5-year period--by a total of about $1.70 billion on a net 
present value basis. (Goal 3); 
Amount: $1.70. 

Description: Recommended that the Congress reduce the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) fiscal year 2007 operations and maintenance budget. The 
congressional appropriations committee conferees reduced DOD's fiscal 
year 2007 operations and maintenance appropriations by $1.459 billion 
based in part on the analysis we provided identifying fiscal year 2004 
and 2005 underexecution of some budget subactivity groups. Staff 
members used the analysis of underexecution (designations exceeded 
obligations) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 in part to reduce DOD's 
fiscal year 2007 budget request by $598.8 million for subactivity 
groups that have been historically underexecuted. In addition, the 
conferees reduced DOD's fiscal year 2007 budget request by $860.6 
million for peacetime training and flying hour offsets also based in 
part on our analysis of underexecution in multiple subactivity groups 
used to fund these activities. The combined impact--as indicated above--
is about $1.459 billion. (Goal 2); 
Amount: $1.46. 

Description: Identified an opportunity for DOD to reallocate funds to 
cover new initiatives. In a November 2002 report, we suggested that the 
Congress consider extending the deadline for the submission of DOD's 
Quadrennial Defense Review in order to provide additional time for DOD 
to align its upcoming budget request with its newest strategic thinking 
as reflected in the Quadrennial Defense Review. In our view, this extra 
time would allow DOD to take full advantage of the review's results and 
shift resources where they would be needed most, that is, provide for a 
better allocation of resources, and avoid unnecessary costs of lower 
priority programs. The Congress adopted our approach and the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review is the first to benefit from the extended 
deadline and reallocate defense resources in accordance with DOD's new 
strategic plan. As a result, DOD's fiscal year 2007 budget shifts 
resources into new programs advocated by the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, including over $1 billion for a special operations initiative 
to help fight the war on terror. To pay for these initiatives, DOD 
shaved billions of dollars from other programs. The 2006 Quadrennial 
Defense Review stated that by shifting the completion date of the 
review to coincide with the submission of the President's fiscal year 
2007 budget request, DOD had included a limited number of new 
initiatives in the budget submission for fiscal year 2007, rather than 
waiting until the fiscal year 2008 budget cycle. The final 
congressional action on DOD's proposal provided a $1.2 billion increase 
in funding for Special Operations Forces in fiscal year 2007. (Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) documents state that DOD made offsetting 
reductions before the President's budget was sent to the Congress.) The 
financial benefit is the $1.2 billion made available from the 
reallocation of resources. (Goal 2); 
Amount: $1.2. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of GAO's Selected Major Financial Benefits Reported in Financial 
Year 2007] 

[End of Financial Benefits] 

Nonfinancial Benefits: 

Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured in 
dollar terms. During fiscal year 2007, we recorded a total of 1,354 
nonfinancial benefits. 

We documented 646 instances where federal agencies used our information 
to improve services to the public, 74 instances where the information 
we provided to the Congress resulted in statutory or regulatory 
changes, and 634 instances where agencies improved core business 
processes or governmentwide reforms as a result of our work. In figure 
4, we provide examples of some of the nonfinancial benefits we claimed 
as accomplishments in fiscal year 2007. The laws that we cite in the 
first section of this figure were enacted in fiscal year 2007. 

Figure 4: GAO's Selected Nonfinancial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 
2007: 

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to change laws: 

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 
109-295: 

Our work is reflected in this law in different ways: 

Developing a center to locate children after disasters. After 
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, GAO found that the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) faced problems getting access to 
American Red Cross and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data 
because of these organizations' concerns about privacy. GAO found that 
a lesson learned from these disasters is that agreements for data 
sharing between NCMEC and the American Red Cross and FEMA can help 
locate missing persons more quickly. We spoke about these concerns 
several times with congressional staff. Subsequently, Pub. L. No. 109-
295 provided for a National Emergency Child Locator Center to be 
established within NCMEC and requires the FEMA Administrator to 
establish procedures to make all relevant information available to the 
center in a timely manner to facilitate the expeditious identification 
and reunification of children with their families. The law also 
requires the center to enter into a cooperative agreement with federal 
and state agencies and with other organizations, such as the American 
Red Cross, as necessary to implement their missions; 

Improving FEMA information on the status of hurricane relief and 
recovery funds. In September 2006, we recommended four actions to 
improve reporting by FEMA to the appropriations committees on the 
status of governmentwide hurricane relief and recovery. These actions 
included (1) explicitly recognizing that FEMA's weekly reporting on 
mission assignment obligations and expenditures does not reflect the 
status from a governmentwide perspective, (2) requesting and including 
actual obligation and expenditure data from agencies performing mission 
assignments in FEMA reporting at specified intervals, (3) including in 
the weekly report amounts reimbursed to other agencies that are in 
suspense because FEMA has not yet reviewed and approved the 
documentation supporting the expenditures, and (4) reiterating to 
agencies performing mission assignments FEMA's policies on (a) the 
detailed information required in supporting documentation for 
reimbursements and (b) the timeliness of agency billings. As requested, 
we provided language that was included in Pub. L. No. 109-295 which 
implemented these recommendations. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364; and; 

U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-28: 

In December 2005 and January 2007, we reported that DOD and NASA 
structured monetary incentives in ways that led to significant 
disconnects between the fees paid to contractors and program outcomes. 
We made recommendations aimed at strengthening the link between 
incentives and outcomes. The Comptroller General testified on this 
issue in April 2006 and we briefed multiple congressional committees. 
The result has been changes to award and incentive fee policies across 
several agencies including DOD, NASA, and the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). Pub. L. No. 109-364 incorporated our recommendations by 
requiring DOD to issue guidance to ensure that award fees are linked to 
acquisition outcomes. In addition, Pub. L. No. 110-28 required all DHS 
award fees to be linked to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 109-435: 

In April 2001, we designated USPS's transformation and long-term 
outlook as a high-risk area because its financial outlook had 
deteriorated significantly and it had no comprehensive plan to address 
its financial, operational, or human capital challenges. We concluded 
that the need for a comprehensive transformation of USPS was more 
urgent than ever and called for the Congress to act on comprehensive 
postal reform legislation. Since then, USPS developed a transformation 
plan to guide its ongoing efforts related to implementing initiatives 
included in its plan and improved its financial outlook. Further, in 
December 2006, the Congress enacted comprehensive postal reform 
legislation to provide a framework for modernizing USPS's rate-setting 
processes and strengthening regulatory oversight and financial 
transparency. Thus, in January 2007, we removed USPS transformation and 
long-term outlook from our high-risk list. 

Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110- 
49: 

The Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act authorizes the 
President to conduct investigations and to suspend or prohibit foreign 
acquisitions, mergers, or takeovers of U.S. companies that threaten to 
impair national security. The President delegated the authority to 
investigate transactions to an interagency committee, the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States. In our September 2005 report, 
we found that some members of the committee have narrowly defined what 
constitutes a threat to national security, despite the broad coverage 
of the factors listed in Exon-Florio that may be considered in 
determining a threat to national security. In one case, this narrow 
view resulted in the weakening of enforcement provisions in an 
agreement to mitigate national security concerns. In our report, we 
suggested that the Congress consider amending Exon-Florio to more 
clearly emphasize factors that should be considered in determining the 
potential harm to national security. In response to our report and 
subsequent events, in 2007 the Congress amended Exon-Florio adding 
additional factors to be considered in determining the effect of a 
transaction on national security. 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. 
L. No. 110-53: 

Our work is reflected in this law in different ways: 

Reexamining inspection exemptions for inbound cargo. During our review 
of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) inbound air cargo 
(i.e., cargo bound for the United States from a foreign country) 
security procedures, we briefed congressional staff on several 
occasions regarding the status of inbound air cargo security and the 
challenges that TSA faces to reducing the vulnerability of the air 
cargo system to terrorist attack. Based on a subsequent report, we 
recommended that TSA establish a time frame for completing an 
assessment of whether existing random inspection exemptions for inbound 
air cargo pose an unacceptable vulnerability to the security of air 
cargo, and take steps, if necessary, to address identified 
vulnerabilities. The Congress included a provision in the 9/11 
Commission Act consistent with our recommendation that requires DHS to 
conduct an assessment of inspection exemptions for cargo transported on 
passenger aircraft and an analysis to assess the risk of maintaining 
such exemptions no later than 120 days from the enactment of the act; 

Reexamining inspection exemptions for domestic air cargo. During our 
review of TSA's domestic air cargo (i.e., cargo that is transported 
within the United States) security procedures, we briefed congressional 
staff regarding the status of domestic air cargo security and the 
challenges that TSA faces to reduce the vulnerability of the air cargo 
system to terrorist attack. Based on a subsequent report, we 
recommended that TSA reexamine the rationale for existing air cargo 
inspection exemptions, determine whether such exemptions leave the air 
cargo system unacceptably vulnerable to terrorist attack, and make any 
needed adjustments to the exemptions. The Congress included a provision 
in the 9/11 Commission Act consistent with this recommendation, by 
requiring DHS to conduct an assessment of inspection exemptions for 
cargo transported on passenger aircraft and an analysis to assess the 
risk of maintaining such exemptions no later than 120 days from the 
enactment of the act. 

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to improve services to the public: 

Strengthened screening procedures for all Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) health care practitioners; 

We identified key screening requirements that VA uses to verify the 
professional credentials and personal backgrounds of its health care 
practitioners. We found adequate screening requirements for certain 
practitioners, such as physicians, for whom all licenses are verified 
by contacting state licensing boards. However, screening requirements 
for others, such as currently employed nurses and respiratory 
therapists, are less stringent because they do not require verification 
of all licenses and national certificates. Moreover, they require only 
physical inspection of the credential rather than contacting state 
licensing boards and national certifying organizations. Physical 
inspection alone can be misleading; not all credentials indicate 
whether they are restricted, and credentials can be forged. We 
recommended that VA expand the verification requirement that facility 
officials contact state licensing boards and national certifying 
organizations to include all state licenses and national certificates 
held by applicants and employed practitioners. In response to our 
recommendation, VA directed its medical facilities to document the 
verification of all state licenses and national certificates (held by 
all practitioners applying for VA positions) with the issuing state 
licensing board or national certifying organization. In December 2006, 
VA required facility officials to credential all health care 
practitioners who claim licensure, registration, or certification 
through its electronic credentialing system. In addition, VA required 
its facility officials to establish a mechanism to ensure that multiple 
licenses, registrations, and/or certifications were held in good 
standing by contacting the state boards or issuing organization. VA's 
actions will better ensure the safety of veterans receiving health care 
at VA medical facilities. 

Tightened monitoring criteria in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) rule on lead in drinking water: 

In a January 2006 report, we recommended that EPA should reassess 
existing regulations and guidance to ensure the circumstances in which 
states approve water systems for reduced monitoring are appropriate and 
that systems resume standard monitoring following a major treatment 
change. We reported that lead rule implementation experiences to date 
have revealed weaknesses in the regulatory framework. In some cases, 
corrosion control can be impaired by changes to other water treatment 
processes, and controls that would help avoid such impacts may not be 
adequate. In July 2006, EPA proposed to change the federal regulations 
and disallow water systems that exceed the lead action level from 
initiating or remaining on a reduced lead and copper monitoring 
schedule based solely on the results of their water quality parameter 
monitoring (see Federal Register, 71, FR 40828 (July 18, 2006)). EPA 
noted that this change would ensure that reduced monitoring would only 
be permitted in instances in which it has been demonstrated that 
corrosion control treatment is both effective and reliable. Compliance 
with water quality parameters alone may not always indicate that 
corrosion control is effective. 

Encouraged reporting of nursing home fire safety deficiencies: 

As part of our review of nursing home fire safety, we found that 
federal oversight of state fire safety activities is inadequate to 
ensure that existing standards are being enforced. Specifically, we 
found that despite the availability of information on oversight of 
nursing home quality through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services' (CMS) Nursing Home Compare Web site, no comparable 
information on fire safety was available. Therefore, consumers lack a 
complete picture of a nursing home's compliance with federal health and 
safety requirements when selecting a facility. To provide the public 
with important information about the fire safety status of nursing 
homes, we recommended that the Administrator of CMS make fire safety 
deficiency data available via the Nursing Home Compare Web site, 
including information on whether the facility has automatic sprinklers. 
CMS concurred with our recommendation and began posting this 
information on the Web site in October 2006. 

Improved information security at the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC): 

In our past work we reported that a publicly accessible workstation 
connected to the internal SEC network was not securely configured. We 
recommended that SEC develop and implement procedures to ensure that 
all publicly-accessible workstations were adequately secured and 
configured with the minimum amount of services necessary to accomplish 
their purpose. In response to our recommendation, SEC removed the 
unsecured workstation and developed procedures to ensure that publicly 
located workstations are secure. As a result, SEC has reduced the risk 
that network services can be compromised, disrupted, or disabled via 
publicly accessible workstations. 

Improved coordination to enhance security of nuclear warhead sites in 
Russia: 

We reported in past work that DOD and the Department of Energy (DOE) 
pursued different approaches to securing nuclear warhead sites in 
Russia. We found that DOD and DOE did not know how many additional 
sites they planned to help secure, had not determined which department 
would improve security at sites they both had in their plans, and had 
not worked together to standardize the types of security equipment 
provided to Russia. As a result, we recommended that DOD and DOE work 
more closely together and develop an integrated plan to help secure 
Russia's warhead sites. In response, DOD and DOE improved their 
coordination mechanisms for sharing information and avoiding 
duplication of effort. Under the aegis of National Security Council 
guidance, the departments agreed on what sites to upgrade and which 
department would install the upgrade. They have also developed common 
design standards to ensure consistency in the assistance provided to 
Russia warhead storage sites. DOD and DOE have also adopted similar 
approaches in how they manage the contracts for installing the security 
upgrades. 

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to promote sound agency and 
governmentwide management: 

FEMA establishes control to help limit disaster assistance payments to 
individuals with invalid Social Security numbers: 

As part of our audit of FEMA's Individuals and Households Program (IHP) 
to assist the victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we found that 
FEMA did not adequately validate the identity of registrants applying 
for disaster assistance. We identified payments to thousands of IHP 
registrants who provided Social Security numbers that were never issued 
or which belonged to deceased individuals. We recommended that FEMA 
improve internal controls over identity confirmation to provide 
reasonable assurance that disaster assistance payments are made only to 
qualified IHP applicants. FEMA subsequently implemented new edit 
controls intended to ensure that Social Security numbers and names 
submitted by IHP disaster assistance registrants are both appropriately 
matched and valid. FEMA's improved control procedures in this area 
should improve up-front controls over the registration process to 
better ensure that only valid applicants receive IHP payments, thereby 
helping to reduce fraudulent IHP payments based on invalid registration 
data. 

NASA establishes policies for reimbursement by nonofficial travelers on 
passenger aircraft: 

In previous work we found that while NASA used its passenger aircraft 
to transport numerous nonofficial travelers to various events, it did 
not have effective procedures in place for collecting reimbursements 
from these travelers as required by OMB Circular No. A-126. We 
recommended that NASA establish procedures for identifying and 
recovering applicable costs associated with transporting these 
nonofficial travelers. In response to our recommendations, in fiscal 
year 2006, NASA revised its aircraft use policy to include specific 
instructions for identifying and obtaining reimbursements from 
nonofficial travelers. This policy change establishes necessary 
procedures for recovering the applicable costs of providing air 
transportation services to nonofficial travelers, and may result in 
savings to NASA and the federal government for the cost of transporting 
these passengers. 

Army requires credit card vendors to conduct credit checks before 
issuing individually billed travel cards: 

During our audits of the Army's controls over individually billed 
travel cards, we found substantial problems with controls over travel 
card accounts, including issuing cards to individuals without 
conducting credit checks. Credit checks could have revealed travel card 
applicants with poor prior credit histories and helped prevent the 
substantial delinquencies and amounts charged off identified in our 
audits. GAO recommended that the Army establish policies and procedures 
governing the issuance of individual travel cards to military and 
civilian employees, including evaluating the feasibility of extended 
use of credit checks for all travel card applicants. In response to our 
recommendation, pursuant to a revision to DOD's Financial Management 
Regulation, the Army now requires its travel card contractor to perform 
a credit check on each new card applicant. Under this policy, (1) 
applicants who refuse to permit a credit checks may be asked to self-
certify to their creditworthiness in order to obtain restricted travel 
cards and (2) applicants who are denied government travel cards due to 
poor credit scores, or inability to meet self-certification 
requirements, will be exempt from mandatory use of the individually 
billed account travel cards. By implementing these requirements, Army 
strengthened management oversight and internal controls over the 
individually billed travel card program and reduced the chance that 
travel cards will be issued to individuals at high risk of not making 
payments or not making payments timely, thus reducing fees and 
eliminating substantial resources spent pursuing and collecting past 
due accounts. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of GAO's Selected Nonfinancial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 
2007] 

Past Recommendations Implemented: 

One way we measure our effect on improving the government's 
accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the percentage 
of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been 
implemented. At the end of fiscal year 2007, 82 percent of the 
recommendations we made in fiscal year 2003 had been implemented, 
primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations 
into practice generates tangible benefits for the nation. 

New Products Containing Recommendations: 

In fiscal year 2007, about 66 percent of the 647 written products we 
issued (excluding testimonies) contained recommendations. We track the 
percentage of new products with recommendations because we want to 
encourage staff to develop recommendations that when implemented by the 
Congress and agencies, produce financial and nonfinancial benefits for 
the nation. We exceeded our target of 60 percent by 6 percentage points 
because our audit teams are emphasizing the need to identify possible 
recommendations as they plan and carry out their work. However, we set 
our target again in fiscal year 2008 at 60 percent because we recognize 
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. Our informational reports 
have the same analytical rigor and meet the same quality standards as 
those with recommendations and, similarly, can help to bring about 
significant financial and nonfinancial benefits. Hence, this measure 
allows us ample leeway to respond to requests that result in reports 
without recommendations. 

Client Measures: 

To fulfill the Congress's information needs, we strive to deliver the 
results of our work orally as well as in writing at a time agreed upon 
with our client. 

Testimonies: 

Our clients often invite us to testify on our current and past work 
when it addresses issues that congressional committees are examining 
through the hearing process. During fiscal year 2007, experts from our 
staff testified at 276 congressional hearings covering a wide range of 
complex issues. (See fig. 5 for a summary of issues we testified on by 
strategic goal in fiscal year 2007.) Over 90 of our testimonies were 
related to high-risk areas and programs (see page 41 in our full fiscal 
year 2007 performance and accountability report). 

In fiscal year 2007, we significantly exceeded our target for 
testimonies at 185 hearings and surpassed our performance on this 
measure over the last 4 years. In fact, only three times in the last 25 
fiscal years have we delivered testimonies at more hearings. The 
Congress asked our executives to testify more than 10 times this fiscal 
year on Hurricane Katrina issues and about 20 times on issues related 
to both terrorism and the Iraq conflict. 

Figure 5: GAO's Selected Testimony Issues in Fiscal Year 2007: 

Selected Testimony Issues, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Goal 1: Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of
the American People: 

* Federal oversight of food safety; 
* Capacity and service gaps among homeless veterans programs; 
* Reauthorizing the State Childrenï¿½s Health Insurance Program; 
* Claims processing challenges for veteransï¿½ disability benefits; 
* FEMA payments on hurricane-damaged properties; 
* Nursing home oversight; 
* Private pension fees; 
* Small Business; 
* Administrationï¿½s disaster preparedness efforts; 
* Improved safety for coal miners; 
* Federal actions to improve child welfare services; 
* Oil and gas royalties; 
* Medicare physician payments; 
* Effects of seller-funded down payments on home loans; 
* Status of the future air traffic control system; 
* USPS reform efforts; 
* Federal real property issues; 
* Emergency management plans for schools. 

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of 
Globalization; 

* Status of benchmarks for Iraqi government; 
* DODï¿½s management of systems and assets; 
* Improving the militaryï¿½s supply chain; 
* Linking defense strategy with military personnel requirements; 
* Navy shipbuilding; 
* Using best practices for space acquisitions; 
* Vulnerabilities in U.S. export control systems; 
* Combating nuclear smuggling; 
* Securing radiological sources in foreign countries; 
* Improving the efficiency of U.S. food aid procedures; 
* National strategy to enforce intellectual property rights; 
* DHSï¿½s major mission and management functions; 
* Risk-management principles and homeland security; 
* Secure border initiative; 
* Bankruptcy reform and credit counseling; 
* National strategy to improve financial literacy; 
* VAï¿½s information security management; 

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Governmentï¿½s Role and How It Does 
Business; 

* Contracting and security challenges in Iraq; 
* Federal acquisitions and contracting challenges; 
* Acquisition challenges at DHS; 
* Security vulnerabilities at unmonitored border locations; 
* Incomplete reporting of federal improper payments; 
* Fiscal stewardship challenges facing the United States; 
* Tax abuses by Medicare Part B providers; 
* Transforming DHSï¿½s financial management systems; 
* Challenges facing the polar satellite program; 
* Electronic voting; 
* Balancing individual privacy with homeland security needs; 
* Health information technology and privacy; 
* Long-term fiscal challenges; 
* Tax compliance; 
* Human capital challenges facing the federal government; 
* Rebuilding the Gulf Coast; 
* Preparations for the 2010 Census; 

Source: See Image Sources. 

[End of GAO's Selected Testimony Issues in Fiscal Year 2007] 

Timeliness: 

To be useful to the Congress, our products must be available when our 
client needs them. We used the results of our client feedback survey as 
a barometer for how well we are getting our products to our 
congressional clients when they need the information. We used this 
survey as the primary data source for our external timeliness measure 
because the responses come directly from our clients. We tally 
responses from the surveys we send to key congressional staff working 
for the requesters of our testimony statements and more significant 
written products (e.g., engagements assigned an interest level of 
"high" by our senior management[Footnote 2] and those requiring an 
investment of 500 staff days or more), which represented 95 percent of 
the written products we issued in fiscal year 2007. Because our 
products usually have multiple requesters, we often survey more than 
one congressional staff person per testimony or product. Each survey 
asks the client whether the product was provided or delivered on time. 
In fiscal year 2007, we had a 28 percent response rate from the 
congressional staff surveyed, which provided us with feedback on 54 
percent of the products for which we sent surveys. 

In fiscal year 2007 we missed our timeliness target by 1 percentage 
point. We have always set our target for timeliness high because it is 
important for us to meet congressional needs when they occur, but we 
have yet to achieve this target. We will continue to emphasize to our 
audit teams the importance of communicating with our clients about when 
they will need testimony statements and products and delivering these 
statements and products when agreed to allow them enough time to 
prepare for hearings and other congressional activities. We anticipate 
these actions will enable us to meet our fiscal year 2008 target of 95 
percent. 

People Measures: 

Our highly professional, multidisciplinary staff were critical to the 
level of performance we demonstrated in fiscal year 2007. Our ability 
to hire, develop, retain, and lead staff is a key factor to fulfilling 
our mission of serving the Congress and the American people. 

New Hire Rate and Acceptance Rate: 

Our new hire rate 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 strategic goals, projected workload changes, and 
other changes such as retirements, attrition, promotions, and skill 
gaps. The workforce plan for the upcoming year specifies the number of 
planned hires and, for each new hire, specifies the pay plan, skill 
type, and level. 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. In fiscal year 2007, our adjusted plan was to hire 198 
staff. However, we were only able to bring on board 187 staff by year- 
end. Of the 198 staff positions, 3 positions were carried over to 
fiscal year 2008 because the applicants could not start until the new 
fiscal year. Our acceptance rate measure is a proxy for our 
attractiveness as an employer and an indicator of our competitiveness 
in bringing in new talent. It is the ratio of the number of applicants 
accepting offers to the number of offers made. We exceeded by 1 
percentage point the targets we set for our new hire rate and met our 
acceptance rate target of 72 percent. (For more about our recruitment 
strategy and performance in fiscal year 2007, see app. 1, p. 182 in our 
full performance and accountability report for fiscal year 2007.) 

Retention Rate: 

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 them to stay with us. This measure is one indicator of whether we 
are attaining this objective. We calculate this measure by taking 100 
percent minus the attrition rate, where attrition rate is defined as 
the number of separations divided by the average on-board strength. We 
calculate this measure with and without retirements. Both of our 
retention rate targets have declined 2 percentage points since fiscal 
year 2003, but have remained relatively flat during the intervening 
years. 

Staff Development and Utilization, Leadership, and Organizational 
Climate: 

One way that we measure how well we are supporting our staff and 
providing an environment for professional growth and 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 our overall operations, work 
environment, and organizational culture and how they rate our managers-
-from their immediate supervisors to the Executive Committee--on key 
aspects of their leadership styles. The survey consists of over 100 
questions. 

In fiscal year 2007, about 72 percent of our employees completed the 
survey, and we met our target for staff development but missed the 
remaining three targets. Though we did not meet our targets for 
leadership or organizational climate in fiscal year 2007, the favorable 
responses were equal to or slightly better than those in fiscal year 
2006. We revised our fiscal year 2008 targets slightly for leadership 
and organizational climate and set them at 80 percent and 75 percent, 
respectively, to be more realistic, but still challenging. We 
anticipate continued improvement on these measures. Since fiscal year 
2003, favorable responses to our staff utilization measure have 
generally increased, but declined in fiscal year 2007. We also adjusted 
this target slightly and set it at 75 percent for fiscal year 2008 to 
ensure that it is realistic and challenging, and we plan to perform a 
comprehensive analysis of the factors associated with staff utilization 
during the fiscal year. 

Data from our employee feedback survey are also used by by the 
Partnership for Public Service to determine our standing in the annual 
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings. We were cited 
as second on the list of large federal agencies according to rankings 
released in April 2007 by this organization. We were also selected by 
Washingtonian magazine in September 2007 as a "Great Place to Work" 
from more than 225 candidates because of our interesting work, good pay 
and benefits, collegial staff, employee development, and flexibility. 

Internal Operations Measures: 

Our mission and people are supported by our internal administrative 
services, including information management, facility management, 
knowledge services, human capital, financial management, and other 
services. To assess our performance related to how well our internal 
administrative services help employees get their jobs done or improve 
employees' quality of work life, we use information from our annual 
customer satisfaction survey to set targets and assess our performance 
for both of these measures. We asked staff to rank 31 internal services 
available to them and to indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 their 
satisfaction with each service. In fiscal year 2006 we exceeded our 
target of 4.0 by a tenth of a percentage point for our help get job 
done measure and met our 4.0 target for our quality of work life 
measure. We will report actual data for fiscal year 2007 once the data 
from our November 2007 internal operations survey have been analyzed. 
Our internal operations measures are directly related to our goal 4 
strategic objectives of continuously enhancing our business and 
management processes and becoming a professional services employer. 

[End of GAO's Performance] 

GAO's High-Risk Program: 

Since 1990, our high-risk program has highlighted long-standing 
challenges facing the federal government. Increasingly, the program has 
focused on those major programs and operations that are in urgent need 
of broad-based transformation and congressional as well as executive 
branch action, to ensure that our national government functions in the 
most economical, efficient, and effective manner possible. Our latest 
regular update, released in January 2007, highlights 27 troubled areas 
across government. Many of these areas involve critical public service 
providers, such as USDA, IRS, and CMS, which provides services to 
Medicare and Medicaid recipients. 

Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-risk 
updates have helped sustain attention from Members of the Congress who 
are responsible for oversight and from executive branch officials who 
are accountable for performance. Our focus on high-risk problems 
contributed to the Congress enacting a series of governmentwide reforms 
to address critical human capital challenges, strengthen financial 
management, improve information technology practices, and instill a 
more results-oriented government. Overall, our high-risk program has 
served to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that 
involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the 
public. 

In fiscal year 2007, we determined that sufficient progress was made to 
merit removing the high-risk designation from two areas--the USPS 
transformation efforts and long-term outlook and HUD's single-family 
mortgage insurance and rental housing assistance programs. We also 
designated three new areas as high risk: financing the nation's 
transportation system, ensuring the effective protection of 
technologies critical to U.S. national security interests, and 
transforming federal oversight of food safety. 

Since our program began, the government has taken high-risk problems 
seriously and has made progress toward correcting them. The original 
high-risk list included 14 areas, but over the next 17 years, 33 areas 
were added, 18 areas were removed, and 2 were consolidated to reach the 
current 27 areas. DOD continues to dominate the list with 8 high-risk 
areas of its own and shared responsibility for 7 more. Table 2 lists 
each current high-risk area and the year it was placed on the high-risk 
list. 

Our high-risk list work in fiscal year 2007: 

* 221 reports; 
* 96 testimonies; 
* 13.55 billion in financial benefits. 

[End of Our high-risk list work in fiscal year 2007] 

In fiscal year 2007, we issued 221 reports and delivered 96 testimonies 
related to our high-risk areas and documented financial benefits 
totaling approximately $13.55 billion. These results included, for 
example, reviews we completed in evaluating DOD's weapon systems 
acquisition process. Some of our significant work in this area includes 
reviewing DOD's progress in meeting cost, schedule, and performance 
goals for the Joint Strike Fighter--DOD's most expensive aircraft 
acquisition program--and assessing the challenges to building a new 
type of aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, within budget. Our 
work in the DOD's weapon systems acquisition area resulted in $2.6 
billion in financial benefits. In addition, we examined how IRS could 
better enforce tax laws. For example, we made recommendations on how to 
increase the tax compliance of sole proprietors and improve the 
efficiency in the appeals process used by taxpayers facing liens or 
levies. We documented approximately $1.3 billion in financial benefits 
from our past work in the enforcement of tax laws area. To learn more 
about our work on the high-risk areas or to download our January 2007 
high-risk update in full, go to [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/highrisk.html]. 

Table 2: GAO's 2007 High-Risk List: 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Strategic Human Capital Management[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2001. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Manging Federal Real Property[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2003. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems and the 
Nation's Critical Infrastructures; 
Year designated high risk: 1997. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security; 
Year designated high risk: 2003. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-Sharing Mechanisms 
to Improve Homeland Security; 
Year designated high risk: 2005. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2005. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Business Systems 
Modernization; 
Year designated high risk: 1995. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Personnel Security 
Clearance Program; 
Year designated high risk: 2005. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Support Infrastructure 
Management; 
Year designated high risk: 1997. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Financial Management; 
Year designated high risk: 1995. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Supply Chain Management 
(formerly Inventory Management); 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Weapon Systems 
Acquisition; 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization; 
Year designated high risk: 1995. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Financing the Nation's Transportation System[A] (New); 
Year designated high risk: 2007. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. 
National Security Interests[A] (New); 
Year designated high risk: 2007. 

High risk area: Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations: 
Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety[A] (New); 
Year designated high risk: 2007. 

High risk area: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: DOD 
Contract Management; 
Year designated high risk: 1992. 

High risk area: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: DOE 
Contract Management; 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Management; 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: 
Management of Interagency Contracting; 
Year designated high risk: 2005. 

High risk area: Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law 
Administration: Enforcement of Tax Laws[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law 
Administration: IRS Business Systems Modernization; 
Year designated high risk: 1995. 

High risk area: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Modernizing Federal Disability Program[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2003. 

High risk area: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer 
Insurance Program[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2003. 

High risk area: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Medicare Program[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 1990. 

High risk area: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Medicaid Program[A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2003. 

High risk area: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: National Flood Insurance Program [A]; 
Year designated high risk: 2006. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions 
by the executive branch, to effectively address this high-risk area. 

[End of table] 

[End of GAO's High-Risk Program] 

Resource Issues and Management Challenges: 

Resources Used to Achieve Our Fiscal Year 2007 Performance Goals: 

Our financial statements for fiscal year 2007 received an unqualified 
opinion from an independent auditor. The auditor found our internal 
controls to be effective--which means that no material weaknesses were 
identified--and the auditor reported substantial compliance with the 
requirements for financial systems in the Federal Financial Management 
Improvement Act of 1996. In addition, the auditor also found no 
instances of noncompliance with the laws or regulations in the areas 
tested. The statements and their accompanying notes, along with the 
auditor's report, appear later in this report. Table 3 summarizes key 
data. 

Compared with the statements of large and complex agencies in the 
executive branch, our statements present a relatively simple picture of 
a small yet very important agency in the legislative branch. We focus 
most of our financial activity on the execution of our congressionally 
approved budget with most of our resources devoted to the human capital 
needed for our mission of supporting the Congress with professional, 
objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced 
information and analysis. 

Our budget consists of an annual appropriation covering salaries and 
expenses, and revenue from reimbursable audit work and rental income. 
Our total assets were $106.5 million, consisting mostly of property and 
equipment (including the headquarters building, land and improvements, 
and computer equipment and software) and funds with the U.S. Treasury. 
Total liabilities of $94 million were composed largely of employees' 
accrued annual leave, amounts owed to other government agencies, 
accounts payable, and employees' salaries and benefits. The greatest 
change in the liabilities is a decrease of $6.1 million in 
intragovernmental accounts payable due to more timely billing from, and 
therefore payments to, other government entities. Also, $3.8 million in 
vendor-financed equipment is recorded on the balance sheet as a note 
payable. 

The net cost of operating GAO during fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
2006 was approximately $500 million and $511 million, respectively. 
Expenses for salaries and related benefits accounted for 81 and 79 
percent of our net cost of operations in fiscal years 2007 and 2006, 
respectively. Figure 6 shows how our fiscal year 2007 costs break down 
by category. 

We report net cost of operations according to our four strategic goals, 
consistent with our strategic plan. Overall, our net costs of 
operations decreased by $11.8 million, due in part to the change in 
workers' compensation methodology in fiscal year 2006, which increased 
liabilities and expenses by more than $5.5 million; there was no 
similar change in fiscal year 2007. 

Table 3: GAO's Financial Highlights: Resource Information (Dollars in 
millions): 

Total budgetary resources[A]; 
Fiscal Year 2007: $498.9; 
Fiscal Year 2006: $497.2. 

Total outlays[A]; 
Fiscal Year 2007: $490.5; 
Fiscal Year 2006: $488.1. 

Net cost of operations; 
Fiscal Year 2007: [Empty]; 
Fiscal Year 2006: [Empty]. 

Goal 1: Well-being and financial security of the American people; 
Fiscal Year 2007: $177.4; 
Fiscal Year 2006: $191.9. 

Goal 2: Changing security threats and challenges of globalization; 
Fiscal Year 2007: 157.5; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 154.7. 

Goal 3: Transforming the federal government's role; 
Fiscal Year 2007: 146.6; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 146.8. 

Goal 4: Maximizing the value of GAO; 
Fiscal Year 2007: 23.9; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 23.7. 

Less reimbursable services not attributable to goals; 
Fiscal Year 2007: (5.7); 
Fiscal Year 2006: (5.6). 

Total net cost of operations; 
Fiscal Year 2007: $499.7; 
Fiscal Year 2006: $511.5. 

Actual full-time equivalents (FTEs); 
Fiscal Year 2007: 3,152; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 3,194. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The net cost of operations figures include nonbudgetary items, such 
as imputed pension and depreciation costs, which are not included in 
the figures for total budgetary resources or total outlays. 

[End of table] 

Our strategic goal 1 showed a reduction in net costs of $14.5 million 
in fiscal year 2007 compared to fiscal year 2006. This decline in goal 
1 costs reflects the continuing shift in our resources towards the 
areas of homeland security, national disaster preparedness, and 
immigration issues, which reside in our strategic goal 2. 

Figure 6: Use of Fiscal Year 2007 Funds by Category: 

[See PDF for Image] - graphic text: 

Pie chart with five items. 

Percentage of total net costs: 

Salaries and benefits: 80.6%; 
Building and hardware maintenance services: 10.3%; 
Rent (space and hardware): 2.3%; 
Depreciation: 2.7%; 
Other: 4.1%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Use of Fiscal Year 2007 Funds by Category] 

Planned Resources to Achieve Our Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Goals: 

Our fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $507.3 million was signed by the 
President on December 26, 2007. Our fiscal year 2008 appropriation 
represents an increase of 3.7 percent over our fiscal year 2007 funding 
level. For the first 3 months of this fiscal year, we and most of the 
federal government operated under a continuing resolution appropriation 
at last fiscal year's funding level. 

Internal Management Challenges: 

At GAO, management challenges are identified by the Comptroller 
General, the Executive Committee, and the agency's senior executives 
through the agency's strategic planning, management, and budgeting 
processes. Our progress in addressing the challenges is monitored 
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. Each year we ask our IG 
to examine management's assessment of the challenges and the agency's 
progress in addressing them. (See page 56 for the IG's assessment.) 

For fiscal year 2007, we continued to address three management 
challenges--physical security, information security, and human capital. 
We anticipate that we will continue to need to address all three 
challenges in future years because they are evolving and will require 
us to continuously identify ways to adapt and improve. 

Physical Security Challenge: 

We continue to build on our previous efforts and pursue new initiatives 
to protect our people and assets and ensure continuity of operations. 
The domestic and international climate remains such that we must 
constantly assess our physical security profile and continuity of 
operations programs and identify and implement improvements to 
strengthen them. 

During fiscal year 2007, we realigned the Office of Emergency 
Preparedness (OEP). OEP is now under the Chief Information Officer, who 
has taken the lead for our continuity of operations and emergency 
preparedness operations. Since the realignment, OEP has centralized and 
strengthened policies and operations, improved internal and external 
communication and information-sharing efforts, and upgraded and 
enhanced its technical capabilities. 

In its policy and oversight role for emergency planning, OEP developed 
program policy and documents to help ensure that we can continue to 
carry out our functions in the face of natural or man-made disasters or 
other disruptions. 

OEP enhanced our capability to communicate to staff during emergency 
situations by developing and refining the emergency notification 
system. 

In addition, we: 

* initiated a contract at the end of fiscal year 2007 for an updated 
security assessment to review all security programs, assess recent 
enhancements against our current threat environment, and revalidate our 
planned next steps; 

* relocated and activated our Security Operations Center and the 
adjacent Emergency Operations Center; and: 

* improved our Integrated Electronic Security System, including 
installation of intrusion detection systems and infrastructure 
enhancements necessary for continued system upgrades. 

We believe that physical security will remain a management challenge in 
fiscal year 2008. Some of our planned initiatives will be subject to 
collective bargaining as they may affect the terms and conditions of 
bargaining unit employees. Some of the most significant efforts planned 
to address this challenge in fiscal year 2008 include the following: 

* Launching a formal test training and exercise program for continuity 
of operations in coordination with the legislative and executive 
branches and local law enforcement. 

* Implementing a security assessment of our current security programs 
and associated risks to personnel, property, and information. 

* Installing card readers that comply with Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 12, which requires issuance of secure and 
reliable forms of identification to employees and contractors using 
U.S. government facilities and information services. 

Information Security Challenge: 

Information system security continues to be a critical activity in 
ensuring our information system and assets are effectively protected 
and free from compromise. 

In fiscal year 2007, we established a wide range of goals and embarked 
on numerous initiatives to address information system security. For 
example, we: 

* worked to improve the protection of data on workstations by 
identifying a desktop encryption product that converts all the data on 
the hard drive to a form that cannot be read by unauthorized people, 

* enhanced our enterprise Internet security by increasing our 
capability to screen Internet traffic against potential threats and 
improved our ability to effectively monitor and better secure our 
computing assets, and: 

* improved our ability to respond and recover in the event of a 
disruption by enhancing communications and restoration capabilities at 
our disaster recovery operations to lessen our risks. 

These and other efforts are discussed in detail in our report on our 
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) efforts in our full 
performance and accountability report. 

An overall information security program can only be effective when 
systems security efforts are fully integrated with technology 
improvements and with an agency's physical security program. In 
recognition of this need for integration, several of our units-- 
Information Systems and Technology Services, the Office of Security, 
the Learning Center, and Knowledge Services--partnered together to 
develop an integrated information security awareness education and 
training program. In 2007, we produced a video of the Comptroller 
General emphasizing our employees' responsibilities regarding 
information security and data protection. We also produced a new 
information security computer-based training program and required all 
personnel to complete it. Our goal has been to ensure that information 
protection requirements extend across the life cycle of documentation: 
from data collection, report production, and data transmission and 
storage to the eventual archival and destruction of data. 

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 in the 
foreseeable future. Some of our planned initiatives may be subject to 
collective bargaining as they may affect the terms and conditions of 
employment of bargaining unit employees. Some of the most significant 
efforts planned to address the information security challenge in fiscal 
year 2008 include: 

* focusing on data protection encryption and identity management to 
better control access to our internal network and information, 

* increasing the centralized auditing and monitoring of network servers 
and devices to better secure our computing assets within the agency, 

* enhancing our security awareness training for staff, 

* responding to new and updated security guidance from the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology and OMB, and: 

* refining our security processes and procedures. 

Human Capital Challenge: 

Competition for talent among knowledge-based organizations is rising as 
the demographics of the workforce shift to a younger and less 
experienced workforce and knowledge and skill gaps occur--particularly 
at mid-and more senior levels--as a result of retirements. The need to 
sustain a knowledge-and skills-based workforce is critical as it is 
this workforce that makes it possible for us to deliver the results and 
performance expected by our clients and customers. 

Our ability to have the right mix of experienced and knowledgeable 
staff to carry out our engagements and meet our client's needs is an 
ongoing challenge. We continue to face continuity and succession issues 
from downsizing and reduced hiring from the mid-to late 1990s. At the 
beginning of fiscal year 2007, over 42 percent of our analysts and 
related staff had fewer than 5 years of agency experience, making 
learning and development--as well as leadership--of this staff a 
challenge of paramount importance. This demographic change has also 
created some cultural challenges as our workforce evolves into a 
multigenerational workforce, with many diverse interests and needs and 
with differing attitudes toward the workplace and a career. This is an 
area that we are currently reviewing and plan to focus on as we move 
forward, given the potential for changing turnover dynamics and the 
likelihood of greater mobility among this workforce. 

Not surprisingly, recruiting, rewarding, and retaining a highly 
qualified, high-performing, and diverse workforce also remains one of 
our most important challenges. Over the past year, we have begun 
implementing enhancements to our recruitment and hiring activities that 
were recommended after an extensive review in 2006 of both our 
recruiting programs and best practice research. These enhancements are 
chiefly focused on recruiting and communications strategies/tools to 
ensure consistent and effective approaches for talent acquisition--from 
the first meeting on a college campus to the first day of employment. 
While we have focused these efforts primarily on our entry-level hiring 
and student intern programs, we have also extended them to upper-level 
hiring, as well. All efforts also include a focus on diversity to 
ensure that our programs and practices support a diverse workforce and 
reinforce our commitment to diversity. 

To address learning and development, we continue to offer more courses 
electronically and have adopted a blended learning approach mixing 
classroom training with Web-based training to ensure that all staff 
members have access to learning. In fiscal year 2007, a team composed 
of staff and managers from various mission teams and units completed an 
evaluation of our leadership development programs and made 
recommendations to our Learning Board and Executive Committee for a 
comprehensive program to enhance the ability of staff at all levels to 
prepare for leadership roles. We plan to implement these 
recommendations in fiscal year 2008. In addition, in fiscal year 2007, 
we inaugurated a new agencywide mentoring program. We currently have 
155 participants in both individual and group mentoring activities and 
expect the program to expand over the coming year. 

We have been a leader in the federal government in implementing 
competency-based performance management, performance-based 
compensation, and more recently a market-based pay system in which (1) 
pay ranges are set competitive with the labor markets in which we 
compete for talent; (2) staff are rewarded based on their performance; 
(3) staff have the opportunity to advance to the top of the pay range; 
(4) pay ranges provide some overlap to adequately reward expertise, 
leadership and performance; and (5) pay policies are grounded in the 
principle of equal pay for work of equal value. From a change 
management perspective, such major transformational efforts affecting 
staff performance and pay, however, can be quite difficult and require 
strong leadership and commitment. This was true with the decoupling of 
our pay system from the governmentwide annual across-the-board 
adjustments, our move to market-based pay, and changes in the analyst 
Band II pay band. (For a discussion of our personnel flexibilities, see 
appendix 2 in our full performance and accountability report for fiscal 
year 2007.) 

Our Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness performs an annual review 
of our employees' performance appraisal data to ensure that the ratings 
are fair and unbiased. In 2006, the trend showed that the most 
significant differences in performance rating averages were between 
African Americans and Caucasians at all mission analyst band levels, 
and that the gap was increasing. To address this challenge, in fiscal 
year 2007 we awarded a contract to an external consultant to analyze 
the African American and Caucasian performance appraisal data from 2002 
through 2006 and to assess and compare the skills, assignments, 
engagement roles, training, education, and recruiting practices for 
African Americans and Caucasians. In addition, the consultant will 
identify best practices internally and externally that might enhance 
our performance management systems and assist in reducing the gap. 

An organizing campaign by the International Federation of Professional 
and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) took place over the last year. On 
September 19, 2007, our Band I and Band II analysts elected the IFPTE 
as their exclusive representative in dealing with our management on the 
terms and conditions of their employment. In accordance with labor 
relations law, we postponed work on several initiatives regarding our 
current performance and pay programs and also maintained absolute 
neutrality during the election period. With the outcome of the union 
vote, our management is committed to working constructively with 
employee union representatives to forge a positive labor management 
relationship and to establish our first collective bargaining 
agreement. 

Finally, over the past year, the expectations of our clients and 
customers have risen as requests for our services have increased, 
creating an ever burgeoning workload, and resulting in some supply and 
demand imbalances. Our ability to meet expectations and balance these 
workload demands is heavily dependent on our annual funding. Because 
our workforce costs constitute about 80 percent of our annual 
appropriations, only 20 percent of the budget is available to fund all 
other agency needs. Without funding to adequately staff the agency, 
invest in our people, and reward our top performers, our ability to 
deliver the requested services will ultimately be negatively affected. 

While we have made much progress, we believe human capital will still 
present a management challenge next fiscal year. Some of our planned 
initiatives may be subject to collective bargaining as they may affect 
the terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees. Some of the most 
significant efforts planned in this area for fiscal year 2008 include 
the following: 

* Working cooperatively and productively with the newly elected labor 
union to establish our first collective bargaining agreement. 

* Completing the implementation of the recruitment task team 
recommendations. 

* Implementing an aggressive hiring strategy to rebuild our workforce 
and acquire needed talents and skills. 

* Developing an action plan for addressing the findings and 
recommendations identified in the African American performance 
appraisal study. 

For more information about our human capital challenge and other 
management challenges, see part I in our full performance and 
accountability report. 

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 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 2007, we stayed abreast of 
current events 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, quickly redirected our 
resources when appropriate so that we could deal with major changes as 
they occurred, maintained broad-based staff expertise so that we could 
readily address emerging needs, and initiated evaluations under the 
Comptroller General's authority on a limited number of selected topics, 
including our high-risk work and fiscal challenges discussions. 

We are experiencing heavy demand from the Congress for work in a number 
of subject areas, including monitoring the progress of the global war 
on terrorism and the continuing challenges it presents; exploring 
economic issues facing U.S. financial markets and American consumers, 
such as concerns facing the subprime mortgage market; analyzing where 
funds are being spent through off-budget vehicles such as tax 
expenditures; and continuing our work on disaster relief issues, such 
as reviews of the installation of new pumps in New Orleans and the 
reconstruction of areas ravaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Yet our 
resources have declined: adjusted for inflation, our budget authority 
has declined by 3 percent in constant fiscal year 2006 dollars since 
fiscal year 2003. Similarly, our FTE usage has declined by more than 3 
percent since fiscal year 2003--from 3,269 to an estimated 3,152 FTEs. 
In fiscal year 2007, we worked with 42 fewer FTEs than last fiscal 
year. In short, both our budget authority and FTE usage are at their 
lowest level since fiscal year 2001. Our ability to effectively manage 
this demand could have an impact on our ability to meet our performance 
targets and satisfy congressional requests for our work. We will 
continue to manage the Congress's requests in order to minimize any 
negative impact on our ability to meet its needs. However, if the 
Congress continues to rely on us to provide assistance in these and 
other areas, the growing imbalance between our workload and our 
available resources must be addressed. Over time, the consistently high 
performance that the Congress expects of us will simply be 
unsustainable if our workload continues to grow while our resources 
continue to lag. 

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. While it is unclear how we will ultimately be 
affected, it is reasonable to assume that any attempt to exercise 
additional budgetary discipline in the legislative branch will include 
our agency. As a result, while we believe that we submit reasonable and 
responsible budget requests and we know that the return on investment 
that we generate is unparalleled, we must plan and prepare for the 
possibility of significant and recurring constraints on the resources 
made available to the agency. In addition, as we stated previously, 
almost 80 percent of our budget is composed of people-related costs, 
and any serious budget situation will have an impact on our human 
capital policies and practices. This, in turn, will have an impact on 
our ability to serve the Congress and meet our performance targets. 
While, as noted above, the nature and extent of any such budget 
constraints cannot be determined at the present time, our executive 
team is engaged in a range of related planning activities. It is both 
appropriate and prudent for us to engage in such planning. At the same 
time, we are hopeful that the Congress will recognize that performance- 
based budgeting concepts would support providing additional resources 
to entities with prudent budget requests and proven performance 
results. If the Congress employs such an approach, we should be in a 
good position to continue to provide a high rate of return on the 
resources invested in the agency. 

A growing area for us involves our work on bid protests. As required by 
law, our General Counsel's office prepares Comptroller General 
procurement law decisions that resolve protests filed by disappointed 
bidders. The number of protest filings in fiscal year 2007 was 23 
percent higher than the number filed in fiscal year 2001 and 6 percent 
higher than the number filed in fiscal year 2006. 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 national 
and homeland security issues may be hampered. Also, we 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. 

[End of Resource Issues and Management Challenges] 

From the Chief Financial Officer: 

Figure: Picture of the Chief Financial Officer, Sallyanne Harper: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Picture of Chief Financial Officer] 

January 2008: 

I am pleased to report that during fiscal year 2007 the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office continued to lead by example in government 
financial management. For the 21st consecutive year, independent 
auditors gave our financial statements an unqualified opinion with no 
material weaknesses and no major compliance problems. The financial 
statements that follow were prepared, audited, and made publicly 
available as an integral part of this performance and accountability 
report 45 days after the end of the fiscal year. Our fiscal year 2006 
report received a certificate of excellence in accountability reporting 
from the Association of Government Accountants (AGA). Our annual 
reports have received this AGA honor each year since we first applied 
with our fiscal year 2001 performance and accountability report. 

In fiscal year 2007 we institutionalized the rigorous process of 
documenting, updating, and reviewing internal controls after 
successfully implementing the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
revised Circular No. A-123, Appendix A last fiscal year. As a result of 
these efforts we have been able to improve on and strengthen the design 
and implementation of our internal control practices throughout the 
financial management process. This year we continued to address those 
minor weaknesses identified in fiscal year 2006 testing that remained 
outstanding by fiscal year end. We instituted a rotating testing 
schedule of the major cycles so that our A-123 testing team reviews, 
updates, and tests the designated cycles at least once every 3 years. 

This fiscal year we also focused many of our resources on preparing for 
our new financial management system. The software solution is the 
Department of Transportation Enterprise Service Center's (ESC) Delphi, 
Oracle Federal Financials. Implementation of our new financial 
management system, GAO Delphi, followed widely accepted best industry 
practices for project management including independent verification and 
validation of our interfaces, test approach, and cutover and 
contingency plans. In addition to the normal testing prior to 
implementation, we built in a 2-month parallel processing phase to 
further validate our production readiness and ensure that GAO Delphi 
would meet agency business needs and internal and external reporting 
requirements. We plan to take advantage of ESC's expertise and 
economies of scale as our service provider for select accounting 
functions, particularly those involving transaction data entry, while 
our staff will maintain appropriate control and oversight of the cross- 
serviced processes. Reducing the amount of data entry done in-house 
will allow our financial management staff to focus more on analysis and 
customer service. As fiscal year 2008 began, we successfully converted 
to the new system. Future phases include implementation of an 
integrated workforce planning and budget formulation solution and an E- 
Gov travel solution. 

In addition to our extensive efforts on our financial systems, we have 
enhanced our product, business, and management processes to streamline 
operations and save the taxpayer money. During fiscal year 2007 we 
successfully completed our extended pilot of the electronic 
dissemination of our print engagement-related products avoiding $48,800 
in costs, and we project future annual savings of about $300,000 
annually in printing-related costs. The pilot showed that we can 
provide products more quickly to our client in electronic format while 
maintaining a high level of customer satisfaction. In tandem with this 
e-dissemination effort we have implemented a new digital printing 
contract which will provide the option to print only the quantity of 
the product needed for distribution to the requester and key recipients 
instead of the 150-copy minimum requested by outside contract print 
companies. To further improve our analysts' business processes, we have 
enhanced our internal electronic audit system, the Financial Audit 
System (FAS), which enables our staff to more comprehensively and 
accurately audit the financial statements of executive branch agencies. 
In addition to enabling us to provide an improved consolidated 
financial statement to our clients, we expect the improvements we have 
implemented will allow us to: reduce travel costs by increasing remote 
access capability; increase the efficiency of our audit work through 
enhanced automated analysis capabilities and project management tools; 
and minimize the effort required for audit start-ups through automated 
planning, staffing, and audit documentation tools. 

The coming fiscal year promises many challenges including 
institutionalizing the day-to-day use of the new financial management 
system. We expect to see our hard work pay off with a smooth transition 
as we begin providing more meaningful management reporting throughout 
the organization and by taking advantage of our service provider's 
services in entering accounting data. As always, we remain focused on 
our role in the legislative branch to support the Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities, to help improve the performance 
and ensure the accountability of the government for the benefit of the 
American people, and to continue to focus on and enhance our internal 
operations and services to better achieve our strategic goal of being a 
model federal agency. 

Signed by: 

Sallyanne Harper: 
Chief Financial Officer: 

[End of Letter From the Chief Financial Officer] 

Overview of Financial Management and Controls: 

Our condensed financial statements and accompanying notes begin on page 
49. Our financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 
2007 and 2006, were audited by an independent auditor, Clifton 
Gunderson, LLP. 

Clifton Gunderson, LLP, rendered an unqualified opinion on our 
financial statements and an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of 
our internal controls over financial reporting and compliance with laws 
and regulations. The auditor also reported that we have substantially 
complied with the applicable requirements of the Federal Financial 
Management Improvement Act of 1996 (Improvement Act) and found no 
reportable instances of noncompliance with selected provisions of laws 
and regulations. In the opinion of the independent auditor, the 
financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects and 
are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 

Financial Systems and Internal Controls: 

We recognize the importance of strong financial systems and internal 
controls to ensure our accountability, integrity, and reliability. To 
achieve a high level of quality, management maintains a quality control 
program and seeks advice and evaluation from both internal and external 
sources. 

We complied with the spirit and intent of Appendix A, OMB Circular No. 
A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, which provides 
guidance for agencies' assessments of internal control over financial 
reporting. We performed this assessment by identifying, analyzing, and 
testing internal controls for key business processes. Based on the 
results of the assessment, we have reasonable assurance that internal 
control over financial reporting, as of September 30, 2007, was 
operating effectively and that no material control weaknesses exist in 
the design or operation of the internal controls over financial 
reporting. Additionally, our independent auditor found that we 
maintained effective internal controls over financial reporting and 
compliance with laws and regulations. Consistent with our assessment, 
the auditor found no material internal control weaknesses. 

We are also committed to fulfilling the internal control objectives of 
31 U.S.C. 3512, commonly referred to as the Federal Managers' Financial 
Integrity Act. Although we are not subject to the act, we comply 
voluntarily with its requirements. Our internal controls are designed 
to provide reasonable assurance that obligations and costs are in 
compliance with applicable laws and regulations; funds, property, and 
other assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized 
acquisition, use, or disposition; and revenues and expenditures 
applicable to our operations are properly recorded and accounted for to 
enable our agency to prepare reliable financial reports and maintain 
accountability over our assets. 

In addition, we are committed to fulfilling the objectives of the 
Improvement Act, which are also covered within 31 U.S.C. 3512. Although 
not subject to the act, we voluntarily comply with its requirements. We 
believe that we have implemented and maintained financial systems that 
comply substantially with federal financial management systems 
requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the United 
States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level as 
of September 30, 2007. We made this assessment based on criteria 
established under the Improvement Act and guidance issued by OMB. Also, 
our auditor reported that we had substantially complied with the 
applicable requirements of the Improvement Act as of September 30, 
2007. 

GAO's IG also conducts audits and investigations that are internally 
focused, functions as an independent fact-gathering adviser to the 
Comptroller General, and reviews all accomplishment reports totaling 
$500 million or more. During fiscal year 2007, the IG examined 
compliance with our policy and procedures for conflict-of-interest 
determinations and conducted reviews of the Comptroller General's 
vouchers for the official representation account, the compensatory time 
for travel program, and our information security program. In addition, 
the IG implemented and managed an internal hotline for use by our 
employees and contractors to report potential fraud, waste, and abuse 
in our operations. Finally, the IG independently tests our compliance 
with procedures related to our performance data on a rotating basis 
over a 3-year period. No material weaknesses were reported by the IG. 
During fiscal year 2007, we completed actions related to seven IG 
recommendations, none of which affected the financial statements. There 
are no unresolved issues. 

Our Audit Advisory Committee assists the Comptroller General in 
overseeing the effectiveness of our financial reporting and audit 
processes, internal controls over financial operations, and processes 
that ensure compliance with laws and regulations relevant to our 
financial operations. The committee is composed of individuals who are 
independent of GAO and have outstanding reputations in public service 
or business with financial or legal expertise. The current members of 
the committee are as follows: 

* Sheldon S. Cohen (Chairman), a certified public accountant and 
practicing attorney in Washington, D.C; a former Commissioner and Chief 
Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service; and a Senior Fellow of the 
National Academy of Public Administration. 

* Edward J. Mazur, CPA; Senior Advisor for Governmental Financial 
Management at Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, LLP; past member of the 
Governmental Accounting Standards Board; former State Comptroller of 
Virginia; and a former Controller of the Office of Federal Financial 
Management in the Office of Management and Budget. 

* Charles O. Rossotti, senior advisor at The Carlyle Group; former 
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and founder and former 
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of American Management Systems, 
Inc., an international business and information technology consulting 
firm. 

Limitation on Financial Statements: 

Responsibility for the integrity and objectivity of the financial 
information presented in the financial statements in this report rests 
with our managers. The statements were prepared to report our financial 
position and results of operations, consistent with the requirements of 
the Chief Financial Officers Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3515). The 
statements were prepared from our financial records in accordance with 
the formats prescribed in OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 
Requirements. These financial statements differ from the financial 
reports used to monitor and control our budgetary resources. However, 
both were prepared from the same financial records. 

Our financial statements should be read with the understanding that as 
an agency of a sovereign entity, the U.S. government, we cannot 
liquidate our liabilities (i.e., pay our bills) without legislation 
that provides resources to do so. Although future appropriations to 
fund these liabilities are likely and anticipated, they are not 
certain. 

[End of Overview of Financial Management and Controls] 

Financial Statements: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Condensed Balance Sheets: 
As of September 30, 2007 and 2006: 
(Dollars in thousands): 

Assets: Intragovernmental assets including funds with the U.S. 
Treasury; 
2007: $64,603; 
2006: $64,941. 

Assets: Property and equipment, net; 
2007: $41,566; 
2006: $40,293. 

Assets: Other; 
2007: $372; 
2006: $358. 

Total Assets; 
2007: $106,541; 
2006: $105,592. 

Liabilities: Intragovernmental liabilities; 
2007: $11,564; 
2006: $16,784. 

Liabilities: Accounts payable and salaries and benefits; 
2007: $28,107; 
2006: $27,667. 

Liabilities: Accrued annual leave and other; 
2007: $29,572; 
2006: $30,299. 

Liabilities: Workers' compensation; 
2007: $16,368; 
2006: $15,910. 

Liabilities: Capital leases and note payable; 
2007: $8,321; 
2006: $6,872. 

Total Liabilities; 
2007: $93,932; 
2006: $97,532. 

Net Position: Unexpended appropriations; 
2007: $30,562; 
2006: $25,951. 

Net Position: Cumulative results of operations; 
2007: ($17,953); 
2006: ($17,891). 

Total Net Position; 
2007: $12,609; 
2006: $8,060. 

Total Liabilities and Net Position; 
2007: $106,541; 
2006: $105,592. 

The accompanying note is an integral part of these statements. 

[End of Condensed Balance Sheets] 

Financial Statements: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Condensed Statements of Net Cost: 
For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: 
(Dollars in thousands): 

Net Costs by Goal: Goal 1: Well-Being/Financial Security of American 
People; 
2007: $177,376; 
2006: $191,880. 

Net Costs by Goal: Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of 
Global Interdependence; 
2007: $157,568; 
2006: $154,727. 

Net Costs by Goal: Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government's Role; 
2007: $146,568; 
2006: $146,769. 

Net Costs by Goal: Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO; 
2007: $23,924; 
2006: $23,664. 

Net Costs by Goal: Less: reimbursable services not attributable to 
goals; 
2007: ($5,730); 
2006: ($5,561). 

Net Costs by Goal: Net Cost of Operations; 
2007: $499,706; 
2006: $511,479. 

The accompanying note is an integral part of these statements. 

[End of Condensed Statements of Net Cost] 

Financial Statements: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Condensed Statements of Changes in Net Position: 
For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: 
(Dollars in thousands): 

Cumulative Results of Operations, Beginning of fiscal year; 
2007: ($17,891); 
2006: ($7,556). 

Budgetary Financing Sources - Appropriations used; 
2007: $474,925; 
2006: $476,081. 

Other Financing Sources: Employee benefit costs imputed to GAO; 
2007: $24,746; 
2006: $25,124. 

Other Financing Sources: Other; 
2007: ($27); 
2006: ($61). 

Total Financing Sources; 
2007: $499,644; 
2006: $501,144. 

Net Cost of Operations; 
2007: ($499,706); 
2006: ($511,479). 

Net Change; 
2007: $62; 
2006: $10,335. 

Cumulative Results of Operations, End of fiscal year; 
2007: (17,953); 
2006: (17,891). 

Unexpended Appropriations, Beginning of fiscal year; 
2007: 25,951; 
2006: 27,003. 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses: Current year appropriations; 
2007: 485,894; 
2006: 482,395. 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses: Appropriations used; 
2007: (474,925); 
2006: (476,081). 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses: Permanently not available and 
other; 
2007: (6,358); 
2006: (7,366). 

Total Unexpended Appropriations, End of fiscal year; 
2007: 30,562; 
2006: 25,951. 

Net Position; 
2007: $12,609; 
2006: $8,060. 

The accompanying note is an integral part of these statements. 

[End of Condensed Statements of Changes in Net Position] 

Financial Statements: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Condensed Statements of Budgetary Resources: 
For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: 
(Dollars in thousands): 

Budgetary Resources: Unobligated balance, beginning of fiscal year; 
2007: $8,492; 
2006: $11,080. 

Budgetary Resources: Budget authority: Appropriations; 
2007: $485,894; 
2006: $482,395. 

Budgetary Resources: Budget authority: Spending authority from 
offsetting collections; 
2007: 10,834; 
2006: 11,119. 

Budgetary Resources: Budget authority: Spending authority from 
offsetting collections: Subtotal; 
2007: 496,728; 
2006: 493,514. 

Budgetary Resources: Budget authority: Permanently not available and 
other; 
2007: (6,358); 
2006: (7,366). 

Total Budgetary Resources; 
2007: $498,862; 
2006: $497,228. 

Status of Budgetary Resources: Obligations incurred; 
2007: $488,852; 
2006: $488,547. 

Status of Budgetary Resources: Unobligated balance - Apportioned; 
2007: 3,170; 
2006: 1,089. 

Status of Budgetary Resources: Unobligated balance not available; 
2007: 6,840; 
2006: 7,592. 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources; 
2007: $498,862; 
2006: $497,228. 

Change in Obligated Balance: Obligated balance, beginning of fiscal 
year; 
2007: $55,238; 
2006: $54,798. 

Change in Obligated Balance: Obligations incurred; 
2007: 488,852; 
2006: 488,547. 

Change in Obligated Balance: Less: Gross Outlays; 
2007: (490,474); 
2006: (488,107). 

Change in Obligated Balance: Obligated balance, end of fiscal year; 
2007: $53,616; 
2006: $55,238. 

Net Outlays: Gross outlays; 
2007: $490,474; 
2006: $488,107. 

Net Outlays: Less: Offsetting collections; 
2007: ($10,645); 
2006: ($11,119). 

Net Outlays; 
2007: $479,829; 
2006: $476,988. 

The accompanying note is an integral part of these statements. 

[End of Condensed Statements of Budgetary Resources] 

Note to Financial Statements: 

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies: 

Reporting Entity: 

The accompanying condensed financial statements present the financial 
position, net cost of operations, changes in net position, and 
budgetary resources of the United States Government Accountability 
Office (GAO). GAO, an agency in the legislative branch of the federal 
government, supports the Congress in carrying out its constitutional 
responsibilities. GAO carries out its mission primarily by conducting 
audits, evaluations, analyses, research, and investigations and 
providing the information from that work to the Congress and the public 
in a variety of forms. 

Basis of Accounting: 

GAO's financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis of 
accounting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles 
for the federal government. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when 
earned and expenses are recognized when incurred, without regard to the 
receipt or payment of cash. These principles differ from budgetary 
reporting principles. The differences relate primarily to the 
capitalization and depreciation of property and equipment, as well as 
the recognition of other long-term assets and liabilities. The 
statements were also prepared in conformity with OMB Circular No. A- 
136, Financial Reporting Requirements. 

Assets: 

Intragovernmental assets are those assets that arise from transactions 
with other federal entities. Funds with the U.S. Treasury comprise the 
majority of intragovernmental assets on GAO's balance sheet. 

Funds with the U.S. Treasury: 

The U.S. Treasury processes GAO's receipts and disbursements. Funds 
with the U.S. Treasury represent appropriated funds Treasury will 
provide to pay liabilities and to finance authorized purchase 
commitments. 

Property and Equipment: 

Generally, property and equipment individually costing more than 
$15,000 are capitalized at cost. Building improvements and leasehold 
improvements are capitalized when the cost is $25,000 or greater. Bulk 
purchases of lesser-value items that aggregate more than $150,000 are 
also capitalized at cost. Assets are depreciated on a straight-line 
basis over the estimated useful life of the property as follows: 
building improvements, 10 years; computer equipment, software, and 
capital lease assets, ranging from 3 to 6 years; leasehold 
improvements, 5 years; and other equipment, ranging from 5 to 20 years. 
GAO's property and equipment have no restrictions as to use or 
convertibility except for the restrictions related to the GAO 
building's classification as a multiuse heritage asset. 

Federal Employee Benefits: 

GAO recognizes its share of the cost of providing future pension 
benefits to eligible employees over the period of time that they render 
services to GAO. The pension expense recognized in the financial 
statements equals the current service cost for GAO's employees for the 
accounting period less the amount contributed by the employees. The 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the administrator of the plan, 
supplies GAO with factors to apply in the calculation of the service 
cost. These factors are derived through actuarial cost methods and 
assumptions. The excess of the recognized pension expense over the 
amount contributed by GAO and employees represents the amount being 
financed directly through the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
Fund administered by OPM. This amount is considered imputed financing 
to GAO. 

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and 
medical cost protection to covered federal civilian employees injured 
on the job, employees who have incurred a work-related occupational 
disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose deaths are attributable 
to job-related injuries or occupational diseases. Claims incurred for 
benefits for GAO employees under FECA are administered by the 
Department of Labor and are paid, ultimately, by GAO. 

GAO recognizes a current-period expense for the future cost of 
postretirement health benefits and life insurance for its employees 
while they are still working. GAO accounts for and reports this expense 
in its financial statements in a manner similar to that used for 
pensions, with the exception that employees and GAO do not make current 
contributions to fund these future benefits. 

Annual, Sick, and Other Leave: 

Annual leave is recognized as an expense and a liability as it is 
earned; the liability is reduced as leave is taken. The accrued leave 
liability is principally long-term in nature. Sick leave and other 
types of leave are expensed as leave is taken. All leave is funded when 
expensed. 

Contingencies: 

GAO has certain claims and lawsuits pending against it. Provision is 
included in GAO's financial statements for any losses considered 
probable and estimable. Management believes that losses from certain 
other claims and lawsuits are reasonably possible but are not material 
to the fair presentation of GAO's financial statements, and provision 
for these losses is not included in the financial statements. 

[End of Financial Statements] 

Independent Auditor's Report: 

Clifton Gunderson LLP: 
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants: 
11710 Beltsville Drive: 
Suite 300: 
Calverton, Maryland: 
tel: 301-931-2050: 
fax: 301-931-1710: 
[hyperlink, http://www.cliftoncpa.com]: 
Offices in 17 states and Washington, DC: 
Member of HLB International: 

Independent Auditor's Report: 

We have audited the balance sheets of the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, and the related 
statements of net costs, changes in net position, and budgetary 
resources for the years then ended. In our report dated November 7, 
2007, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial 
statements. We performed our audit in accordance with auditing 
standards generally accepted in the United States of America; 
Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the 
United States; and Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Bulletin 07-
04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. 

In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed 
financial statements is fairly stated, in all material respects, in 
relation to the financial statements from which it has been derived. 

Our report also included our opinion that GAO maintained effective 
internal control over financial reporting (including the safeguarding 
of assets) and compliance with laws and regulations as of September 30, 
2007. We did not evaluate all internal controls relevant to operating 
objectives. In addition, because of inherent limitations in any 
internal control, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not 
be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the internal control 
to future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may 
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree 
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. 

Our report also included our opinion that GAO's financial management 
systems substantially complied with the requirements of the Federal 
Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FEMIA). 

We also reported that we found no reportable noncompliance with laws 
and regulations tested. However, the objective of our audit was not to 
provide an opinion on GAO's overall compliance with laws and 
regulations, and we do not express such an opinion. We did not test 
compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to GAO. We limited 
our tests of compliance to those laws and regulations required by OMB 
audit guidance that we deemed applicable to  the financial statements 
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007. We caution that 
noncompliance may occur and not be detected by these tests and that 
such testing may not be sufficient for other purposes. Our conclusion 
on compliance with laws and regulations is intended for Congress and 
GAO's management and should not be used by anyone other than these 
specified parties. 

Signed by: 

Clifton Gunderson LLP: 

Calverton, Maryland: 
November 7, 2007: 

[End of Independent Auditor's Report] 

From the Inspector General: 

Memorandum: 

Date: October 26, 2007: 

To: Comptroller General: 

From: Inspector General - Frances Garcia: 

Subject: GAO Management Challenges and Performance Measures: 

We have examined management's assessment of the management challenges. 
Based on our work and institutional knowledge, we agree that physical 
security, information security, and human capital continue to be 
management challenges that may affect GAO's performance. We also agree 
with management's assessment of progress made in addressing these 
challenges. 

During fiscal year 2007, we reviewed all accomplishment reports of $500 
million or more, which totaled 74 percent of the total dollar value 
reported. Based on our reviews, we believe that GAO had a reasonable 
basis for claiming these benefits. In addition, we assessed GAO's 
fiscal year 2006 performance measures for how well its internal 
administrative services help employees get their jobs done and improve 
the quality of their work life. Overall, we found that these measures 
were reasonable and that methods used to measure performance were 
appropriate, but we also made recommendations to help improve their 
objectivity and reliability. 

[End of From the Inspector General] 

Image Sources: 

This section contains credit and copyright information for images and 
graphics in this product, as appropriate, when that information was not 
listed adjacent to the image or graphic. 

Front cover and page i: GAO (flag, Capitol balcony), Corbis (Statue of 
Thomas Jefferson and Inscription of his Words at the Jefferson 
Memorial, Capitol dome interior, Contemplation of Justice statue): 

Page 13: GAO (flag), PhotoDisc (bills): 

Page 17: GAO (flag), PhotoDisc (cogs): 

Page 25: PhotoDisc (bills), GAO (Capitol): 

[End of Image Sources] 

Providing Comments on This Report: 

To provide comments for improving this document, please contact our 
Chief Quality Officer, who can be reached at (202) 512-6100, at 
[email protected], or at the following address: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 6K17Q: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

However, you can also order GAO documents by mail or by phone. The 
first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and MasterCard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

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

To order documents by phone, call: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

GAO Web: 

Performance and Accountability Report and Highlights on the Web: 

This document and related products are available through our Web site 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/sp.html]. 

Also linked to that page are our strategic plan and our past 
performance and accountability publications. 

Other Web Pages of possible interest: 

Reports and testimonies: 

Download GAO's most recent products or search an extensive archive of 
past products to download those of interest [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/repandtest.html] 

Legal Products: 

Download legal decisions and opinions about appropriations, bid 
protests, and major federal agency rules [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/legal.htm] 

For the press: 

Check out the Reporter's Guide to GAO and other resources for the media 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/press.html] 

Careers at GAO: 

Review current job openings, apply online, and learn about GAO's teams 
and offices at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/jobopp.htm] 

FraudNet: 

Report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of federal 
funds [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm] 

E-mail alerts: 

Get automatic updates on new GAO products [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/subtest/subscribe.html] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act requires ongoing 
evaluations and annual reports on the adequacy of the systems of 
internal accounting and administrative control of each agency. The 
Government Performance and Results Act seeks to improve public 
confidence in federal agency performance by requiring that federally 
funded agencies develop and implement accountability systems based on 
performance measurement, including setting goals and objectives and 
measuring progress toward achieving them. The Federal Financial 
Management Improvement Act emphasizes the need to improve federal 
financial management by requiring that federal agencies implement and 
maintain financial management systems that comply with federal 
financial management systems requirements, applicable federal 
accounting standards, and the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger 
at the transaction level. 

[2] As part of our risk-based engagement management process, we 
identify a new engagement as high interest if the work we need to 
perform will likely require a large investment of our resources, 
involve a complex methodology, or examine controversial or sensitive 
issues. 

Government Accountability Office: 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?rptno=GAO-08-2SP] 

[End of Performance and Accountability Highlights]