Office of Management and Budget: Changes Resulting From the OMB 2000
Reorganization (Letter Report, 12/29/95, GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the changes that have
occurred at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a result of OMB
2000, focusing on the: (1) changes in OMB organizational structure,
responsibilities, staffing, and OMB statutory offices; and (2) attention
OMB gave to management issues in the budget formulation process.

GAO found that: (1) OMB 2000 created a new organizational structure for
OMB by reorganizing and replacing former budget program areas with
resource management offices (RMO) staffed by employees reassigned to new
program examiner positions; (2) OMB shifted specific oversight
responsibilities of the statutory offices to RMO, while responsibilities
for governmentwide management policies remained in the statutory
offices; (3) the implementation of OMB 2000 resulted in greater
attention to agency management issues in the budget process; (4) while
some OMB staff were concerned about their ability to perform their
expanded responsibilities, OMB staff generally had a positive view of
OMB 2000; and (5) although OMB initially planned to evaluate OMB 2000 as
a distinct management initiative, it plans a broader assessment of its
overall effectiveness in formulating and implementing management
policies for the government.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD/AIMD-96-50
     TITLE:  Office of Management and Budget: Changes Resulting From the 
             OMB 2000 Reorganization
      DATE:  12/29/95
   SUBJECT:  Federal agency reorganization
             Reductions in force
             Human resources utilization
             Budget administration
             Strategic planning
             Program evaluation
             Agency missions
             Employee transfers
             Financial management
IDENTIFIER:  OMB 2000
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1995

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET -
CHANGES RESULTING
FROM THE OMB 2000 REORGANIZATION

GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50

GAO/GGD-96-50

OMB 2000

(246077/935152)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DDM - Deputy Director for Management
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  IRM - Information Resources Management
  NPR - National Performance Review
  OIRA - Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
  OFFM - Office of Federal Financial Management
  OFPP - Office of Federal Procurement Policy
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  RMO - Resource Management Office

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-260096

December 29, 1995

The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman
The Honorable John Glenn, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable William F.  Clinger, Jr., Chairman
The Honorable Cardiss Collins, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we describe the changes
that have occurred as a result of OMB 2000--a major reorganization
and process change at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that
was announced March 1, 1994, as part of the National Performance
Review (NPR).\1 The primary goal of OMB 2000 was to integrate OMB's
budget analysis, management review, and policy development roles
under a new structure to improve the decisionmaking process and
oversight of executive branch operations.  The objectives of our
review were to describe (1) changes in OMB's organizational
structure, responsibilities, and staffing as a result of OMB 2000;
(2) changes to OMB's three statutory offices; (3) changes in the
attention OMB gave to management issues in the budget formulation
process before and after OMB 2000; and (4) the way OMB planned to
evaluate OMB 2000.  We did not evaluate OMB's overall capacity to
carry out its central management responsibilities. 


--------------------
\1 NPR, under the direction of Vice President Gore, is a major
management reform initiative intended to identify ways to make the
government work better and cost less. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

We developed the information in this report from numerous interviews
of OMB managers and staff and reviews of budget documents for fiscal
years 1995 and 1996.  In total, we interviewed 87 OMB officials and
staff, representing over 15 percent of all OMB employees.  However,
because the interviews were not a random sample drawn from all
components of OMB, the information obtained from them is not
generalizable to all OMB employees.  We reviewed budget documents
that related to four executive departments and one agency:  the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Labor, Justice, Housing and Urban
Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  To obtain
access to OMB's internal budget review documents, we agreed to keep
the information the documents contained confidential and to describe
examples from them that illustrated the changes before and after OMB
2000 in a general manner. 

In contrast to our 1989 general management review of OMB,\2 this
review focused on a specific reorganization initiative.  As agreed
with your offices, our review was descriptive rather than evaluative
in nature because, at the time we started our review, it was too
early to evaluate this complex and significant reorganization of OMB. 
Moreover, it was very difficult to separate the influence of OMB 2000
from concurrent management reform initiatives, such as the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)\3 or other components of
NPR.  We did our work in Washington, D.C., from November 1994 through
July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  Appendix I provides additional details on our objectives,
scope, and methodology. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB for her
review and comment on November 28, 1995.  OMB's comments are
presented and evaluated on page 28 of this report, and a copy of
OMB's comments is in appendix V. 


--------------------
\2 Managing the Government:  Revised Approach Could Improve OMB's
Effectiveness (GAO/GGD-89-65, May 4,1989) assessed OMB's recent and
long-term performance in providing leadership and promoting
management improvements in the executive branch. 

\3 GPRA requires agencies to develop strategic plans, obtain input on
desired goals from key stakeholders, and measure and report progress
toward achieving those goals. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Management and budget issues have long competed for attention and
resources within the Executive Office of the President, with
management concerns commonly subordinated to the exigencies of the
budget process.  During the past 50 years, a number of presidential
advisory groups have recommended changes designed to strengthen the
Office's central management leadership.  In response to the
recommendations of one of these groups, the Bureau of the Budget was
reorganized in 1970 and renamed OMB, thereby signaling the intent to
heighten the management focus in the agency.  However, the creation
of OMB did not produce an institutionalized capacity for
governmentwide management leadership.  OMB's budget role continued to
dominate management responsibilities, and its capacity to provide
management direction for the executive branch remained a persistent
concern.  Observers have debated how to best ensure that management
issues are not overwhelmed by budgeting pressures.  Some observers
have advocated integrating the two functions, while others have
proposed the creation of dedicated offices, or even a separate agency
to provide governmentwide management leadership. 

Previous OMB reorganizations have reflected these different points of
view, alternating between integrating management into the budget
review process and creating separate management offices.  Proponents
of integrating management into the budget review process believed
doing so could increase the attention both OMB examiners and agencies
give to management issues by linking these issues to budgetary
consequences.  However, budget issues have tended over time to
squeeze out management issues and erode attempts to dedicate specific
resources to management.  On the other hand, proponents of creating
separate management offices believed the separation of management and
budget functions could help ensure a consistent level of attention to
specific management issues.  However, these offices may have marginal
impact in leading changes at the agencies without the influence of
potential budgetary consequences. 

Our 1989 report on OMB examined the agency's repeated reorganizations
and management improvement efforts and concluded that OMB had been
unable to coordinate its management and budget functions effectively
and had not established a stable management capacity.  We found that
OMB's short-term, budget-driven focus often made it difficult for the
agency to address long-term management problems.  We recommended that
OMB (1) establish a systematic process within the annual budget cycle
for identifying and overseeing agency progress on key management
issues, (2) give budget divisions the responsibility and resources to
oversee agency implementation of management policy, (3) improve
coordination between management and budget staff, and (4) consider
creating the position of Deputy Director for Management (DDM). 

Congress has used its legislative power for the past two decades to
help direct OMB's governmentwide management leadership.  For example,
the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982 required OMB to
help establish guidelines agencies could use to evaluate their
internal control systems.  To increase attention to certain
management problems, Congress created three separate statutory
offices in OMB focused on specific management areas:  the Office of
Federal Financial Management (OFFM) to guide the establishment of
systems and controls needed for agencies' financial management; the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to provide overall
direction for executive agencies' procurement policies, regulations,
and procedures; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) to direct and oversee agencies' management of information
resources and reduction of unnecessary paperwork.  In addition, in
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Congress established the
DDM position to strengthen federal management in general.  In 1993,
Congress also required OMB to lead the implementation of GPRA, which
was designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal
programs by establishing in each agency a system for setting goals
for program performance and measuring results.  Congress did not
create a separate office in OMB for GPRA, but OMB initially placed
responsibility for that function in its General Management Division,
where responsibility for other governmentwide management initiatives
was housed. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

OMB 2000 created a new organizational structure for the agency by
reorganizing and replacing OMB's former budget program areas with
five Resource Management Offices (RMO) staffed by employees
reassigned to new program examiner positions.  The RMOs were assigned
integrated responsibilities for examining agency management, budget,
and policy issues.  In general, the agency-specific oversight
responsibilities of the three statutory offices were shifted to the
RMOs, but OMB decided to retain responsibility for developing
governmentwide management policies in the statutory offices.  OMB's
General Management Division was eliminated. 

Our review of budget documents and interviews with OMB staff
indicated that there was greater attention to agency management
issues in the fiscal year 1996 budget process (after OMB 2000 was
implemented) than in the fiscal year 1995 process.  A greater variety
of management issues was presented in more depth in the fiscal year
1996 budget documents than in the previous year's documents.  These
results reflected the clear commitment of OMB's top officials to
ensure the treatment of management issues in the budget cycle. 

Although RMO staff said that budget examiners had looked at agency
management issues before OMB 2000, they said that after the
reorganization more attention was given to particular management
issues by the RMOs, specifically the fiscal year 1996 budget
initiatives on agencies' streamlining plans and use of performance
information.  They also said that OMB and agencies were more likely
to take action on management issues when they were associated with
the budget.  However, some RMO staff said that the expansion of their
responsibilities raised concerns that short-term budget pressures
could limit their examination of long-term management issues.  Some
program examiners also said they did not have and could not easily
locate the expertise needed to address certain management issues for
which they were responsible.  However, despite these concerns about
its initial implementation, OMB staff generally had a positive view
of OMB 2000. 

Only one budget cycle has been completed under this reorganization. 
Therefore, some of the problems experienced to date may be merely
transitional in nature, and it remains to be seen whether the initial
positive results can be sustained over the longer term.  Top OMB
officials have fostered greater attention to management issues in the
budget, but our interviews revealed concerns over whether this focus
has become institutionalized for the longer term.  We believe that
OMB needs to address the longer term prospects for its capacity to
provide central management leadership.  Although OMB initially
planned to evaluate OMB 2000 as a distinct management initiative, it
now plans to assess more broadly its overall effectiveness in
formulating and implementing management policies for the government
in response to GPRA requirements.  In recognition of the continued
key role Congress expects OMB to play in addressing federal
management issues, and in recognition of the history of tension
between the two concepts of (1) integrating management and budget
responsibilities and (2) segregating management responsibilities to
prevent them from being overwhelmed by budget responsibilities, we
believe it is important that OMB understand how the reorganization
has affected its capacity for sustained management leadership. 


   CHANGES IN OMB'S ORGANIZATIONAL
   STRUCTURE, RESPONSIBILITIES,
   AND STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

OMB 2000 altered OMB's organizational structure and the
responsibilities of units within that structure.  As a result of OMB
2000, the RMOs were created and made responsible for all
agency-specific reviews, and the statutory offices continued to be
responsible for developing governmentwide policy.  Each RMO consists
of at least one division, with several branches in each division. 
OMB 2000 created new staff positions, moved staff to different units
within the new structure, and made other staffing changes.  Overall,
the RMOs were assigned about 26 percent more staff than the former
budget program areas had, although OMB's total fiscal year 1994
staffing allocation (556 full-time equivalents) was unchanged.  (App. 
II shows OMB's staffing profile before and after OMB 2000.)


      CREATION OF THE RMOS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

OMB 2000 created five RMOs from five former budget program areas,
which had examined agency budget requests and made funding
recommendations to OMB's Director.  OMB 2000 redistributed some
former budget program area assignments in order to balance the
workload within and among RMOs.  Before OMB 2000, OMB had separate
management offices that examined agencies' implementation of
management initiatives.  OMB had a General Management Division prior
to OMB 2000 that was responsible for, among other things, performance
measurement, program evaluation, and federal personnel and property
management issues.  In addition, OMB has three management-related
offices that were created by statute:  OFFM, OFPP, and OIRA.  OMB
reassigned staff from both the former budget program areas and the
management offices to the RMOs to examine agencies' specific
management, budget, and policy issues.  Figure 1 shows OMB's
organization before OMB 2000. 


   Figure 1:  Office of Management
   and Budget, Before OMB 2000

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The National Security and International Affairs and the Natural
Resources, Energy, and Science budget program areas became RMOs with
comparable agency coverage.  The Health budget program area became
the Health and Personnel RMO and acquired responsibility for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Personnel Management,
the Executive Office of the President, and the Postal Service.  Some
of the Human Resources budget program area's examining
responsibilities (such as responsibility for the Department of
Veterans Affairs) were moved elsewhere.  Coincident with these
changes, the Human Resources budget program area became an RMO. 
Finally, the Economics and Government budget program area became the
General Government and Finance RMO, maintaining responsibility for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, and Treasury; and federal financial institutions; and
adding responsibility for the General Services Administration.  (The
RMOs' organizational structure and examining responsibilities are
illustrated in app.  III in figs.  III.1 through III.5.) Figure 2
shows OMB's organization after OMB 2000. 


   Figure 2:  Office of Management
   and Budget, After OMB 2000

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The RMOs were also given responsibility for overseeing agencies'
implementation of governmentwide management policies--a
responsibility that had formerly been assigned to OMB's management
offices (the statutory offices and the General Management Division). 
For example, OMB made the RMOs responsible for examining agencies'
audited financial statements and for assessing agencies' high-risk,
procurement, and information resources management (IRM) issues.  OMB
eliminated OFFM's Credit and Cash Management Branch and the Special
Studies Divisions that had been associated with three of the five
budget program areas.  The Special Studies Divisions, which had
originally been established to provide management expertise within
the budget program areas, had most recently focused on longer term
policy analysis. 

The General Management Division was eliminated when two of its three
branches (the Federal Services and Federal Personnel Policy Branches)
were moved to RMOs and the third branch (Evaluation and Planning) was
eliminated.  The movement of the Division's responsibilities for
examining the other two central management agencies (the General
Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management)
reversed a previous initiative to give the General Management
Division some budget examining responsibilities. 

OMB assigned most of the responsibilities and staff from these units
to the RMOs.  For example, the two staff members who coordinated OMB
Circular A-76\4 activities and credit and cash management
responsibilities were moved from the General Management Division and
OFFM, respectively, to the General Government and Finance RMO.  The
staff member who coordinated GPRA responsibilities was transferred
initially from the General Management Division to the Human Resources
RMO.  In May 1995 OMB relocated the individuals responsible for
coordinating GPRA and OMB Circular A-76 initiatives from the RMOs to
its Budget Review Division, because it determined that these
crosscutting issues could be better handled centrally. 

OMB attempted to reassign staff with specific expertise from the
pre-OMB 2000 management offices to areas where they could continue to
use their skills.  For example, OMB assigned two former OFPP staff to
an RMO branch that works on Department of Defense procurement issues
and a former OFFM staff member to an RMO branch that works on housing
loan issues. 

However, competing priorities prevented OMB from assigning some staff
to areas related to their expertise and also prevented some RMO
branches from receiving any new staff.  Following the initial OMB
2000 staff reassignments, it was up to each branch chief to determine
what, if any, technical skills the branch needed to fulfill its new
responsibilities and to develop those skills within given staffing
allocations.  No specific guidance or technical support was provided
toward this end, and we observed no organized assessment on OMB's
part to identify required skills or any deficiencies. 

The branches within the RMOs were given discretion to decide how they
would address management issues, and the methods they used varied. 
Some RMO branches used former management staff primarily as
management specialists, while others assigned them program examiner
responsibilities to examine specific agency accounts.  For example,
the Housing and Urban Development/Federal Emergency Management Agency
Branch of the General Government and Finance RMO assigned two former
management staff a lighter load of agency examining responsibilities
than other examiners in the branch, allowing them to spend at least
half of their time on management issues.  In contrast, the Income
Maintenance Branch of the Human Resources RMO assigned a former
financial management staff member a workload similar to that assigned
to the other program examiners in the branch, with responsibility for
examining budget, policy, and management issues within specific
program areas. 


--------------------
\4 OMB Circular A-76 establishes the federal policy on commercial
services.  The circular specifies cost-comparison procedures for
determining when it is more economical to contract out for services
currently done by federal employees. 


      CREATION OF THE RMO PROGRAM
      EXAMINER POSITION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Before OMB 2000, budget examiners were responsible for budget review
and program oversight for an assigned agency or agency program.  As a
result of OMB 2000, OMB replaced its budget examiner positions with
program examiner positions and reassigned staff from the budget
program areas, the General Management and Special Studies Divisions,
and the statutory offices to fill those positions in the RMOs. 
Program examiners are employed in the RMOs as federal General
Schedule (GS) employees in grades GS-9 through GS-15, with GS-15 the
full performance level.  Program examiners' position descriptions
were expanded from those of budget examiners to more explicitly
include responsibility for management issues.  For example, before
OMB 2000, budget examiners were to assist General Management Division
staff in analyzing reorganization proposals; after OMB 2000, the
program examiners were made responsible for conducting those reviews
on their own.  Program examiners were also given responsibility for
planning and conducting studies on financial management and
procurement.  However, the position description does not explicitly
mention IRM responsibilities.  (See fig.  IV.1 in app.  IV for a
comparison of examiners' major duties before and after OMB 2000.)

OMB also developed a new set of performance standards to cover all of
its professional staff, including RMO and statutory office staff.\5
Before OMB 2000, standards were individually tailored to particular
positions.  For example, previous performance standards for a budget
examiner were focused specifically on budget formulation and review
responsibilities.  OFFM policy analyst standards included analyzing,
coordinating, and monitoring financial systems issues; General
Management Division policy analyst standards included analyzing the
implementation of management initiatives, program evaluation, and
long-range planning.  OMB revised its performance standards to make
them more uniform, to simplify them, and to encompass broader
responsibilities, but the standards no longer identify specific
responsibilities, including management responsibilities.  (Fig.  IV.2
in app.  IV shows OMB's new critical job elements and performance
standards for professional staff.)

As it has done traditionally, OMB primarily used on-the-job training
to familiarize its examiners with their responsibilities.  However,
OMB also offered (but did not require) some formal training for the
new responsibilities given to program examiners as a result of OMB
2000.  For example, OMB offered training primarily on budget
concepts, laws, and procedures for new program examiners who
transferred from the management offices.  OMB also invited all its
staff to attend an OMB-wide "dialogue" on the fiscal year 1996 budget
process and gave them the option of attending sessions designed for
new OMB staff.  The training included 1- to 2-hour sessions on such
topics as the budget process; streamlining plans and the use of
performance information (crosscutting issues that were emphasized in
the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle); legislation; and initiatives
related to certain statutory office responsibilities (e.g.,
procurement reform).  OMB officials told us that 80 to 90 percent of
OMB's program examiners and statutory office staff attended these
sessions.  In addition, some of the statutory offices provided
informal training or other guidance for program examiners and RMO
branch chiefs on certain management issues.  For example, OFFM
conducted seminars on financial management issues, such as reviewing
audited financial statements. 


--------------------
\5 In addition to RMO program examiners, OMB's professional staff
includes such positions as policy, management, and program analysts;
accountants; economists; attorneys; statisticians; and other
specialists.  These professionals are employed throughout OMB, such
as in the statutory management offices and in other OMB-wide offices. 
Program examiners are employed in the RMOs. 


   CHANGES TO OMB'S STATUTORY
   OFFICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

As a result of OMB 2000, OMB reduced the number of authorized staff
positions in each of its statutory offices and moved those staff to
the RMOs.\6 The size of the staff reductions varied by office.  All
the statutory offices retained their governmentwide policymaking
roles, and OIRA retained its oversight responsibilities for
regulatory and paperwork issues.  However, the offices'
responsibilities for overseeing agencies' implementation of other
governmentwide management initiatives were transferred to the RMOs. 
Each statutory office followed a different approach in devolving
these responsibilities.  During our interviews, OMB staff identified
a number of benefits that occurred as a result of changes to the
statutory offices, such as enhanced coordination with agencies and
the visibility of the financial management or procurement issues that
became tied to the budget process.  However, they also expressed some
concerns about these changes, including concerns about how OMB 2000
had affected OMB's capacity to address financial management and
procurement issues.  These issues are only a part of the many
responsibilities of a program examiner; prior to OMB 2000, they had
been the responsibility of a limited number of management staff
dedicated specifically to these issues. 


--------------------
\6 Generally, these authorized positions were staffed by OMB
employees who were moved to the RMOs from the statutory offices.  In
some instances, however, the statutory office positions were vacant
and OMB abolished these positions and established new positions in
the RMOs.  Therefore, changes in the number of authorized positions
were somewhat greater than the total number of staff who were
transferred. 


      OFFICE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL
      MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

As a result of OMB 2000, 21 of OFFM's 41 authorized staff positions
were shifted to the RMOs, including most of the staff of the Credit
and Cash Management Branch, which was abolished.  According to the
March 1, 1994, memorandum announcing the reorganization, these staff
were shifted from OFFM to increase the RMOs' analytical capabilities. 
OFFM retained responsibility for developing and coordinating
governmentwide financial management policies, but OMB transferred
responsibility for assessing agencies' implementation of these
policies to the RMOs.  RMO program examiners also were made
responsible for assessing the status of agencies' progress regarding
high-risk issues and for reviewing agencies' audited financial
statements--functions that had been the responsibility of OFFM. 

Several RMO officials said that there was better coordination between
OFFM and other parts of OMB following OMB 2000.  For example, OFFM
took steps to work jointly with the RMOs and increase RMO officials'
participation in the Chief Financial Officers Council.\7

OFFM sent Council meeting agendas and minutes to RMO officials and
solicited their input.  OFFM also held several training sessions for
RMO staff on a range of financial management issues, including
accounting standards, the form and content of audited financial
statements, and consolidated reporting. 

Despite these efforts to improve the RMOs' knowledge and analytical
capabilities, a number of OMB staff we talked to expressed concerns
about the program examiners' capacity to address financial management
issues.  They said some program examiners did not yet have the
expertise they needed to carry out their agency-specific financial
management oversight responsibilities, such as reviewing audited
financial statements.  They also said that they were uncertain how to
address credit and cash management questions since responsibility had
been devolved to the RMOs. 


--------------------
\7 The Chief Financial Officers Council was established by the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 to advise and coordinate the agencies'
activities on such matters as consolidation and modernization of
financial systems, improved quality of financial information,
financial data and information standards, internal controls,
legislation affecting financial operations and organizations, and
other financial management matters.  The Council is chaired by OMB's
DDM. 


      OFFICE OF FEDERAL
      PROCUREMENT POLICY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

OMB reallocated 10 of OFPP's 30 authorized staff positions to the
RMOs as a result of OMB 2000.  Six of the 10 former OFPP staff became
jointly managed under a "matrix management" approach in which they
were made responsible for working on both the agency-specific issues
in their RMOs and crosscutting procurement issues (e.g., electronic
commerce) on an OFPP team.  OFPP's responsibilities for overseeing
agency implementation of governmentwide procurement policies were
reassigned to the RMOs. 

According to OFPP's Administrator, the matrix approach was used to
provide the structure needed to implement OMB's statutory procurement
responsibilities and provide the RMOs with the procurement expertise
they needed to perform their oversight responsibilities.  He said
that RMO matrixed staff who worked on OFPP teams could also oversee
the implementation of the teams' ideas by the agencies for which they
had responsibility.  For example, he said that the RMO matrixed staff
serving on OFPP's research contracting team collaborated on this
issue with several agencies on major research contracts, developed
appropriate points of contact in the agencies, and worked jointly
with OFPP staff and agency officials to address the issue.  OFPP
extended the matrix approach to include nonmatrixed staff from RMOs
on the OFPP electronic commerce team. 

However, some of the OMB staff we interviewed said that OFPP's matrix
management approach caused difficulties for the matrixed staff
because they reported to managers in two different organizations with
different expectations.  One reported difficulty was the attempt to
integrate former OFPP staff as RMO program examiners when OFPP's
Administrator expected the matrixed staff to work solely on
procurement issues.  Most of the matrixed staff said it was difficult
to sort out work priorities under this staffing arrangement. 


      OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND
      REGULATORY AFFAIRS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

OIRA's 56 authorized staff positions were relatively unchanged by OMB
2000, with only 4 authorized positions transferred to the RMOs. 
OIRA's 12 IRM staff retained responsibility for establishing
governmentwide IRM policies, but responsibility for overseeing agency
implementation of those policies shifted to the RMOs.  However, OMB's
program examiner position description does not explicitly include IRM
oversight responsibilities.  OIRA also continued to be responsible
for all regulatory and paperwork reviews as well as statistical
policy issues.  According to the March 1, 1994, memorandum, OMB
postponed any major reorganization of OIRA because of its
responsibility for implementing Executive Order 12866 on regulatory
planning and review.\8

OIRA's Administrator told us that as an alternative to decentralizing
staff to the RMOs, OIRA used IRM teams, composed of RMO program
examiners and OIRA staff.  The teams were developed to enhance
working relations between the groups and to ensure that RMOs were
knowledgeable about IRM issues.  The Administrator and some RMO staff
said OIRA generally had a good working relationship with the
examiners before OMB 2000 in both the regulatory and IRM areas, and
that this relationship continued after the reorganization.  Also,
OIRA staff still concentrate on governmentwide and crosscutting
issues.  For example, a team composed of OIRA and GAO staff developed
a best practices guide to help OMB program examiners and agency
personnel identify important issues in oversight of information
technology investments.\9 Also, each IRM specialist in OIRA's
Information Policy and Technology Branch serves as a liaison to at
least one interagency group, including groups on wireless
communications, international trade data, electronic mail, wage tax
reporting, and system benefits.\10


--------------------
\8 Executive Order 12866 was issued on September 30, 1993, making OMB
responsible for ensuring that agencies' rulemaking is consistent with
applicable law, the President's priorities, and the Executive Order's
principles. 

\9 Evaluating Information Technology Investments:  A Practical Guide,
Oct.  1995 Draft. 

\10 In early 1995 the Information Policy and Information Technology
Branches were merged into the Information and Technology Branch. 


   OMB'S ATTENTION TO MANAGEMENT
   ISSUES CHANGED AFTER OMB 2000
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The budget documents we reviewed and our interviews with OMB staff
indicated that OMB's attention to management issues changed following
OMB 2000.  The documents showed that the quantity and quality of
information about management issues presented during the budget
process increased after the reorganization.  Many of the OMB staff we
interviewed also reported that they believed there had been an
increased focus on management issues in the budget process after OMB
2000 and said this focus had resulted in changes in their work. 
However, they also expressed some concerns regarding OMB's attention
and capacity to address certain issues. 


      OMB FISCAL YEAR 1996
      DOCUMENTS SHOWED AN
      INCREASED FOCUS ON
      MANAGEMENT ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The budget documents we reviewed related to five selected agencies
generally contained more substantive and detailed discussions of
management issues for fiscal year 1996 than the previous year's
documents, although the information provided by agencies and the
level of analysis by OMB staff varied.  Changes in OMB's management
emphasis were apparent in three areas--OMB's management priorities,
issues related to OMB's statutory offices, and other program-related
management issues. 


         OMB MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.1

OMB's top management priorities for the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle
were agencies' streamlining plans and use of performance
information.\11 OMB budget preparation guidance published in July
1994 said agencies' fiscal year 1996 budget submissions were to
identify the key features of their streamlining plans (e.g.,
increased span of control, reduced organizational layers, and/or
milestones for full-time equivalent reductions).  The guidance also
encouraged agencies to include performance goals and indicators in
their budget justifications and to include output and outcome
measures instead of workload and other process measures.\12 During
their review of agency budget submissions, RMO program examiners were
expected to assess whether agencies' streamlining plans were
acceptable and, if not, to recommend changes.  They were also asked
to identify (1) whether performance information had been provided,
(2) why such information was not provided or was limited, and (3)
what additional information would be useful. 

In September 1994, the OMB Director and the DDM established more
specific guidance for RMO program examiners to use when reviewing
agency fiscal year 1996 budget submissions for these areas of
emphasis.  For example, guidance stated that the examiners' reviews
of streamlining plans should be more than a "numbers exercise" and
that they should consider the quality, scope, and nature of each
agency's streamlining effort.  The guidance instructed RMO program
examiners to include performance measurement information, where
available, in all their analyses of major issues.\13

The budget documents we reviewed indicated that OMB's priorities on
streamlining plans and the use of performance information had a clear
impact on the fiscal year 1996 agencies' submissions and OMB's
internal budget review documents.  Whereas the fiscal year 1995
documents discussed streamlining primarily in terms of the number of
positions to be eliminated, the fiscal year 1996 documents also
included discussions about how proposed staff reductions could affect
the agencies' performance.  In the documents for one agency, RMO
staff commented that its fiscal year 1996 plan was thorough and
comprehensive and was designed to meet NPR's targeted staffing levels
while providing better customer service, cost savings, and an
improved working environment for agency employees.  OMB internal
budget documents for another agency included a detailed analysis of
the agency's performance management system.  The analysis noted that
the resources the agency requested were justified in terms of
activities to be funded but also said that the agency lacked a clear
picture of the outcomes that would result from the requested funding. 
The documents also highlighted problems with the agency's performance
reporting system (e.g., lack of cost data and limited data quality
and comparability), noting that the system did not contain enough
information to identify underlying problems and did not link outcomes
to reported outputs.  RMO staff recommended specific performance
measures that would be useful to OMB and identified problems that
confronted the agency in designing an effective performance
measurement system (including potential conflicts between federal
agencies' goals and missions, exogenous effects on outcomes, and
linkages between social costs and outcomes). 


--------------------
\11 The identification of these areas of emphasis and any subsequent
change of emphasis in the budget process may have been related to
other events occurring simultaneously, such as the implementation of
GPRA, the passage of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-226), and the implementation of NPR recommendations. 

\12 OMB's Circular A-11 guidance for fiscal year 1997 includes
instructions on the preparation and submission of agencies' strategic
plans.  These plans should set the agencies' strategic course;
describe their overall programmatic and policy goals; and spell out
how these goals will be achieved. 

\13 OMB continued this emphasis on performance information by
reinstituting a Spring Review as a prelude for the fiscal year 1997
budget.  Unlike prior Spring Reviews that emphasized program policy
and budget issues, this review was intended to help OMB and agencies
work together to identify useful performance information. 


         STATUTORY OFFICE AND
         OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.2

Issues related to OMB's statutory offices were also generally
discussed in greater depth in the fiscal year 1996 budget documents
than they were in the fiscal year 1995 documents.  For example, the
discussion of financial management issues in internal OMB documents
for one agency was much narrower before OMB 2000 than it was after
the reorganization.  The discussion in the fiscal year 1995 documents
was limited to a statement that the agency faced challenges in such
areas as contract management and financial systems.  The fiscal year
1996 documents included an assessment of financial management issues
at the agency, such as a review of the agency's 5-year plan and how
it related to reengineering and streamlining efforts. 

The fiscal year 1996 budget documents also included a broader
discussion of other types of management issues than there was in the
fiscal year 1995 documents.  For example, in the fiscal year 1995
documents, both the Department of Justice and OMB raised the issues
of prison overcrowding and the continuing growth in full-time
equivalent requirements for the Department's Bureau of Prisons as
strictly resource issues.  In contrast, in the fiscal year 1996
documents, OMB's assessment extended beyond the resource issues to
include information on trends in state and county prison systems,
operating costs at the Bureau's medium- and low-security facilities
compared to private facilities, and issues involving the quality of
confinement and the adequacy of security.  In OMB's review of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's fiscal year 1995 budget
request, OMB budget examiners discussed the Department's credit
management and asset disposition strategies.  In OMB's review of the
Department's fiscal year 1996 request, RMO staff again discussed
these issues but also analyzed the relationship of improved credit
management and asset disposition to budget savings, reduced
administrative and full-time equivalent requirements, and improved
customer service.  In their analysis, the RMO staff included selected
performance measures and identified specific actions that could be
adopted on the basis of evidence from the Department's financial
statements, Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and audit
reports, and other sources. 

OMB not only increased its attention to certain management issues in
the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle, it also changed the type of
information it requested from the agencies under OMB Circular A-11
for high-risk and information systems reports.  Although the
individual high-risk programs were discussed in as much or more
detail in the fiscal year 1996 documents, OMB required agencies to
report on fewer high-risk programs and to concentrate their high-risk
efforts on those operational improvements not requiring legislative
authorization.\14 OMB Circular A-11 guidance for the fiscal year 1996
budget process consolidated requirements for some financial
management and financial systems reports and reduced the level of
detail that agencies were required to report to OMB.  In
consolidating or reducing these requirements, OMB attempted to
concentrate on financial and mixed systems critical to agencywide
financial management, reporting, or control and no longer required
data on nonfinancial reporting systems. 


--------------------
\14 According to OMB Circular A-11 for the fiscal year 1997 budget
process, OMB program examiners will have the discretion to decide
whether an agency must report on its high-risk programs with its
budget submission. 


      OMB STAFF REPORTED UNEVEN
      BUT IMPROVED ATTENTION TO
      MANAGEMENT ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

The OMB staff we interviewed said that changes arising from OMB 2000
had mixed effects on OMB's ability to address management issues.  OMB
staff expressed a widespread view that OMB's attention to certain
management issues, such as streamlining plans and the use of
performance information, had increased in the fiscal year 1996 budget
cycle.  Former budget examiners generally said that they felt more
responsible for management issues after OMB eliminated what some
viewed as an artificial separation between management and budget. 
Some of the staff also said, however, that OMB's attention to other
management issues that were formerly statutory office or General
Management Division responsibilities had decreased or varied across
the RMO branches.  RMO staff, both those who had formerly been
management staff and those who had formerly been budget examiners,
voiced specific concerns about the reorganization, although they
generally expressed positive views about OMB 2000. 

Program examiners who were formerly budget examiners generally said
that although they had looked at management issues before OMB 2000,
the degree to which they emphasized those issues had increased since
the reorganization.  Many of the OMB staff we interviewed said that
the Director and the DDM were clearly committed to improving federal
management and that their commitment had raised the importance of
management issues in OMB as a whole.  However, because the management
focus of OMB 2000 was so closely identified with these officials,
some of the staff raised questions about whether that emphasis would
survive when those officials left OMB. 

Several OMB staff also said that OMB and agencies were more likely to
act on management issues when those issues were raised in the context
of budget reviews.  They said linking management and budget issues
provided examiners with more leverage for change in the agencies. 
For example, an OFFM staff member cited financial management
restructuring as an example of an area where agencies took action
more quickly when the issue was raised by an RMO during the budget
review process than when this issue was raised outside of budget
discussions by OFFM. 

Some of the OMB staff we interviewed said that the discretion given
to RMOs in overseeing agency implementation of management issues
resulted in a more varied approach to addressing management issues
within OMB than had been the case before OMB 2000.  They said the RMO
branches differed in both whether and how they treated management
issues for which the statutory offices or the General Management
Division were formerly responsible.  RMO staff said that the
particular management focus an RMO takes depends on the kinds of
activities and issues at the agencies being examined.  For example,
procurement issues may be more prominent in OMB's examination of
agencies that do a lot of purchasing, such as the Department of
Defense. 

One of the goals of OMB 2000 had been to realign resources so that
program examiners could do more long-term "mid-range" analysis.\15
However, RMO staff frequently said there had been an increase in
their responsibilities as a result of OMB 2000, and their workload
increased in response to such initiatives as reinventing government
and congressional agency restructuring proposals.  They also said
they had not been told to eliminate any responsibilities or tasks as
a result of OMB 2000.  Because they had to balance competing
responsibilities, several program examiners said that less emphasis
had been placed on certain management issues--those that lacked a
clear budgetary impact, did not require an immediate response to a
short-term deadline, or did not reflect the administration's
priorities.  In particular, they said the short-term pressures of the
budget process left little time for long-term analysis. 

Although they felt more responsible for agency management issues,
some program examiners said that they did not know how to address all
of these issues.  They also said that the reduction of centralized
management expertise in the statutory offices and the elimination of
the General Management Division left them with fewer sources of
expertise and assistance.  Because program examiners had little time
to spend looking for the expertise that was available, they said that
certain management issues were not addressed or received less
attention.  OMB staff were not always sure how various management
issues related to each other and to the budget process.  According to
OMB's Director and DDM, OMB is working to develop a unified framework
to bring together the various management-related laws and initiatives
with a performance focus. 


--------------------
\15 The memorandum announcing OMB 2000 indicated that a lack of time
to do such analysis had been a common complaint from OMB staff for
some time.  In our 1989 report on OMB (GAO/GGD-89-65, May 4, 1989),
we reported that OMB's focus on the short-term consequences of
actions had limited OMB's efforts to help resolve long-term problems. 


   OMB HAS NOT FORMALLY EVALUATED
   OMB 2000
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

OMB initially planned to assess the OMB 2000 effort.  However, the
Associate Director for Administration said that OMB decided not to
evaluate OMB 2000 in the spring of 1995 because the unprecedented
pace of the fiscal year 1996 budget process left insufficient time to
perform any evaluation.  He said OMB no longer planned any formal
assessment of the personnel and organizational changes in OMB 2000. 
However, a Special Assistant to the DDM said OMB intends to assess
the effectiveness of OMB as a whole in response to GPRA requirements. 
Part of this assessment will be an evaluation of the integration of
OMB's management and budget responsibilities. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

The changes associated with OMB 2000 should be viewed in the context
of OMB's perennial challenge of carrying out its central management
leadership responsibilities in an environment in which its budgetary
role necessarily remains a vital mission.  Previous congressional and
OMB attempts to elevate the status of management and protect it from
budgetary pressures by creating separate management units within OMB
sought to ensure that a consistent level of effort was focused on
management issues.  However, these efforts were widely acknowledged
to have been only marginally successful in affecting budget decisions
and sustaining attention to OMB's role of leading management
improvement in the agencies.  Sustained attention to management
issues often remained subordinated to budget concerns and
perspectives, and the leverage the budget could offer to advance
management efforts was not directly available to the management
units. 

OMB 2000 represents another OMB approach to try to strengthen its
management leadership capacity and influence.  Although policy
development responsibilities were retained within its separate
management offices, OMB attempted to elevate the importance of
management by linking its management oversight and budget preparation
responsibilities within newly created RMOs.  In decentralizing
responsibility for management issues throughout the RMOs, OMB 2000
increased reliance on the commitment of RMO managers and staff and
coordination of their activities with the statutory offices.  OMB's
initial experience with this approach during the 1996 budget process
showed the clear support of top OMB officials and staff to enhance
the treatment of certain management issues in the budget.  Even
though this was a particularly difficult budget cycle, there was a
noticeable increase in the attention given to management issues that
transcended immediate budgetary concerns.  However, given the many
issues competing for the attention of RMO officials and staff, top
leadership direction will continue to be an important factor in
ensuring consistent guidance across RMOs and continued concern for
governmentwide management issues.  At the time of our review only one
budget cycle had elapsed since the inception of OMB 2000, so it
remains an open question whether the heightened attention to
management issues will be sustained after the current leadership
leaves OMB. 

In addition, sustained congressional oversight of both management
policies and reform initiatives will continue to play a vital role in
ensuring a consistent focus on management issues within OMB.  Some
recent statutory management initiatives have, in fact, provided a new
set of tools that may aid the integration of management issues in the
budget process.  The Chief Financial Officers Act requires agencies
to produce, for the first time, audited financial data that can be
used in the budget process to better measure the actual costs of
programs and promote improved financial management of scarce
resources by federal agencies.  Under GPRA, agencies are required to
generate performance measures and information that may help OMB
better assess the management of program resources and achievement of
program goals. 

A critical question facing OMB is whether its new approach toward
integrating management and budgeting as well as its implementation of
statutory management responsibilities can be sustained over the long
term.  Sustaining a management focus in budgeting relies on the
capacity and expertise of the program examining staff to address
management issues.  These issues warrant continued attention and
periodic assessment by OMB itself to help promote the organization's
long-term capacity to achieve an integrated approach to management as
part of the budget process. 

OMB needs to periodically assess how well its RMOs and statutory
offices are working together to address management issues.  Such an
assessment should most appropriately be undertaken as part of a
broader assessment of OMB's performance in formulating and
implementing management policies for the government that address a
larger range of issues affecting the effectiveness of OMB's
management role.  This assessment could also inform the ongoing
debate on how best to protect management from being overwhelmed by
budgetary pressures--specifically, whether a separate office of
management is needed.  The most effective evaluation would be one
where all stakeholders reached mutual agreement on the particular
elements of the evaluation and the indicators used to measure
performance.  The GPRA strategic planning process offers an excellent
opportunity for OMB to evaluate its own institutional capacity and to
identify opportunities to strengthen leadership of management issues. 

Our review suggested a number of possible areas to consider for
evaluation.  For example: 

  Although the OMB staff we spoke with were generally positive about
     the reorganization, they expressed some concerns about whether
     program examiners had sufficient time and expertise to
     adequately address certain management issues during their agency
     budget reviews.  OMB could examine whether on-the-job training
     and a decentralized staffing approach are appropriate to develop
     the skills and abilities needed by RMOs to carry out management
     oversight responsibilities. 

  OMB used three different approaches during the first year of OMB
     2000 to structure RMOs' relationships with statutory offices and
     to provide program examiners with access to management
     expertise:  (1) direct transfer of responsibilities and
     resources to RMOs, as used in reorganizing certain general and
     financial management activities; (2) joint assignment of staff,
     as used in matrixing federal procurement policy and oversight
     responsibilities; and (3) use of "best practices" guidance, as
     developed for information resources management.  OMB could
     evaluate each of these approaches to determine whether any of
     them are more effective than the others, or whether changes are
     needed in the way they have been implemented. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

OMB 2000 has clearly affected how the agency addresses management
issues, but a broader assessment of OMB's management strategies and
approaches is the most appropriate context in which to consider how
to best ensure the integration of management and budgeting. 
Accordingly, as part of its planned broader assessment of its role in
formulating and implementing management policies for the government,
OMB should consider the lessons learned from OMB 2000.  Such a review
should focus on specific concerns that need to be addressed to
promote more effective integration, including (1) the way OMB
currently trains its program examiners and whether this is adequate
given the additional management responsibilities assigned to these
examiners, and (2) the effectiveness of the different approaches
taken by OMB in the statutory offices to coordinate with RMOs and
provide program examiners with access to expertise. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

We provided copies of a draft of this report for review by OMB
officials.  On December 1, 1995, we met with OMB's DDM and one of his
special assistants, the Associate Director for Administration, and a
staff assistant.  They generally agreed with the facts presented and
said they found the report useful.  The OMB officials provided some
additional information on the training OMB has provided and on OMB's
planned assessment of OMB as a whole. 

On December 10, 1995, the DDM provided written comments on this
report (see app.  V) in which OMB generally concurred with the
report's conclusions and recommendation.  In its letter, OMB said
that it found our report to be thorough, accurate, and constructive
in describing the OMB 2000 changes.  OMB agreed that the strategic
planning process it will be working on in the coming year offers an
excellent opportunity for OMB to evaluate its institutional capacity
and to identify opportunities to strengthen leadership of critical
governmentwide management issues.  OMB's letter stated that its
planning effort will address the integration of management and budget
responsibilities, including the adequacy of employee training and
different approaches to integration and coordination among OMB's
various units.  In addition, the DDM wrote that OMB's Management
Committee, consisting of the DDM and 13 other members from all levels
within OMB, deals with the entire range of issues and initiatives
pertaining to OMB's organizational effectiveness, structure, and work
practices.  We cannot yet evaluate the adequacy of the actions OMB
plans to take in the coming year. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Director and Deputy
Director for Management, OMB; and other interested Members of
Congress.  We will also make copies available to others on request. 

Major contributors are shown in appendix VI.  If you have any
questions concerning this report, please call either of us.  Nye
Stevens can be reached on (202) 512-8676, and Paul Posner can be
reached on (202) 512-9573. 

L.  Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management and
 Workforce Issues
General Government Division

Paul L.  Posner
Director, Budget Issues
Accounting and Information Management
 Division


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The objectives of our review were to describe (1) changes in OMB's
organizational structure, responsibilities, and staffing as a result
of OMB 2000; (2) changes to OMB's three statutory offices; (3)
changes in the attention OMB gave to management issues in the budget
formulation process before and after OMB 2000; and (4) how OMB
planned to evaluate OMB 2000. 

To describe changes in OMB's organization, responsibilities, and
staffing as a result of OMB 2000, we reviewed OMB memoranda,
personnel data, and other documents.\1 We also interviewed OMB
officials, including the Human Resources Manager, the Associate
Director for Administration, and special assistants to the DDM.  To
describe changes in OMB's statutory offices, we examined what OMB is
required to do by statute and reviewed OMB documents that described
these offices' responsibilities.  We also interviewed the top
officials, selected branch chiefs, and other staff within the
statutory offices--OFFM, OFPP, and OIRA. 

We determined changes in the attention OMB gave to management issues
in the budget formulation process by comparing fiscal year 1995 and
fiscal year 1996 budget guidance, agency budget submissions, internal
OMB budget documents, and the President's budget for fiscal years
1995 and 1996 related to five agencies:  the Departments of Veterans
Affairs, Labor, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.  For background information, we
interviewed officials in each of the five selected agencies who were
identified by their agencies as knowledgeable about the budget
process and submissions for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.  We selected
these agencies for our review to provide examples of the agencies
that the RMOs oversee (four of the five RMOs were included in our
review:  the Natural Resources, Energy and Science RMO; the General
Government and Finance RMO; the Human Resources RMO; and the Health
and Personnel RMO).  The agencies were also selected to represent a
mix of program activities (e.g., regulatory and grants); modes of
service delivery (e.g., direct and third-party providers); and
organizational structures (e.g., centralized and decentralized). 

We reviewed OMB's budget preparation and submission guidance and
other related OMB documents for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and
interviewed officials and staff from all the levels within the RMOs,
including divisions and branches, who were responsible for examining
these agencies.  We also interviewed RMO program examiners from other
branches who, before the OMB 2000 restructuring, were budget
examiners, management staff, or Special Studies Division analysts. 
To determine how OMB planned to evaluate OMB 2000, we interviewed the
DDM and other top OMB officials.  We also asked OMB staff if they
were aware of any formal performance measures or goals for OMB 2000
or if they knew of any OMB plans to evaluate OMB 2000. 

We asked all OMB staff and officials we interviewed a standard set of
questions about OMB 2000, along with additional questions relevant to
their positions or organizational location within OMB.  Consequently,
the number that constituted "some" of the respondents varied from
question to question. 


--------------------
\1 All staffing data presented in this report are from fiscal year
1994, when OMB 2000 was announced and initially implemented. 
Staffing levels since the reorganization have remained relatively
unchanged. 


STAFFING PROFILE, BEFORE AND AFTER
OMB 2000
========================================================== Appendix II


                                                      Before     After
                                                         OMB       OMB   Percent
Offices                   Organizational component    2000\a    2000\b    change
------------------------  ------------------------  --------  --------  --------
Directors, staff, and     Office of the Director          13        16      23.1
 support offices
                          Communications                   2         2       0.0
                          Legislative Affairs              6         6       0.0
                          General Counsel                  8         8       0.0
                          Economic Policy                 11        10      -9.1
                          Legislative Reference\c         27        27       0.0
                          Administration\c                15        19     \26.7
                          Budget Review                   73        72      -1.4
================================================================================
                          Subtotal                       155       160       3.2
Budget program            National Security and           56        64      14.3
 areas/RMOs                International Affairs
                          Natural Resources,              64        72      12.5
                           Energy
                           and Science
                          Economics and                   55        73      32.7
                           Government/
                           General Government and
                           Finance
                          Human Resources                 39        39       0.0
                          Health and Personnel            27        56     107.4
================================================================================
                          Subtotal                       241       304      26.1
Management and statutory  Federal Financial               41        20     -51.2
 offices                   Management
                          Federal Procurement             30        20     -33.3
                           Policy
                          Information and                 56        52      -7.1
                           Regulatory Affairs
                          General Management              33         0    -100.0
                           Division
================================================================================
                          Subtotal                       160        92     -42.5
================================================================================
Total                                                    556       556       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Before OMB 2000 staffing data are as of January 1, 1994. 

\b After OMB 2000 staffing data are as of June 18, 1994. 

\c Although the Office of Administration and the Office of
Legislative Reference were not established as separate offices until
OMB 2000, for purposes of this analysis, staff data are presented
separately both before and after OMB 2000. 


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (RMO)
BRANCHES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
========================================================= Appendix III

The following figures illustrate each RMO's organization and the
agencies for which it has examining responsibilities.  The listings
of agencies for which the RMO has examining responsibilities are not
comprehensive.  The agencies listed represent those with statutory
Inspectors General and are included to illustrate RMO program
responsibilities. 

   Figure III.1:  National
   Security and International
   Affairs RMO:  Divisions,
   Branches, and Agency Examining
   Responsibilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.2:  Natural
   Resources, Energy and Science
   RMO:  Divisions, Branches, and
   Agency Examining
   Responsibilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.3:  General
   Government and Finance RMO: 
   Divisions, Branches, and Agency
   Examining Responsibilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.4:  Human Resources
   RMO:  Division, Branches, and
   Agency Examining
   Responsibilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.5:  Health and
   Personnel RMO:  Divisions,
   Branches, and Agency Examining
   Responsibilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Excludes the National Security Council and the Office of Science
and Technology. 


PROGRAM EXAMINERS' MAJOR DUTIES
AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
========================================================== Appendix IV

The following figures illustrate (1) the major job responsibilities
of program examiners, comparing these duties with those of the former
budget examiner position; and (2) the new critical job elements and
performance standards that OMB has adopted for all OMB professional
staff. 

   Figure IV.1:  Comparison of
   Budget and Program Examiners'
   Major Duties

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  Shaded text indicates
   additional responsibilities
   assumed by program examiners.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure IV.2:  OMB's Critical
   Job Elements and Performance
   Standards for All OMB
   Professional Staff

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
AGENCY COMMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Curtis W.  Copeland, Assistant Director, (202) 512-8101
Susan Ragland, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-8486
A.  Elizabeth Powell, Senior Evaluator
Kiki Theodoropoulos, Communications Analyst
Thomas Beall, Analyst

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION

Michael J.  Curro, Assistant Director, (202) 512-2991
Denise M.  Fantone, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-4997
Carol M.  Henn, Evaluator

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***