Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's Draft
Strategic Plan (Correspondence, 07/30/97, GAO/RCED-97-208R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the draft strategic
plan submitted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), as required by
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

GAO noted that: (1) DOT has undertaken a significant amount of work
collecting and analyzing information while preparing its draft strategic
plan; (2) the plan, however, does not reflect enough of this information
and, overall, is so general that clearly identifying DOT's priorities is
difficult; (3) the plan does not meet the act's requirements to
describe: (a) strategies for achieving DOT's long-term goals; (b) a
linkage between DOT's long-term goals and annual performance goals; and
(c) those key external factors that could significantly affect DOT's
achieving its goals; (4) DOT's draft strategic plan appears to reflect
the Department's key statutory authorities; (5) however, because the
plan lacks precision, these statutory authorities are reflected at a
very high level of generality; (6) the plan does not show evidence that
the Department coordinated with other agencies that have programs and
activities that are crosscutting or similar to DOT's; (7) the plan
recognizes that there are other stakeholders for DOT's long-term goals
and provides for building or establishing partnerships with these
federal, state, and local governments and the transportation industry;
(8) however, except for the Department of Defense, the plan does not
identify specific stakeholders; (9) the plan does not identify the
crosscutting or overlapping programs, explain how the activities and
programs of other stakeholders could affect DOT's achieving the goals,
and describe how DOT plans to coordinate with other stakeholders; (10)
DOT's draft strategic plan does not adequately address major management
challenges and high-risk areas that GAO has previously identified in its
reports and testimonies; (11) addressing these issues is critical to
ensuring that strategies are in place to meet the Department's goals;
(12) DOT's ability to produce reliable performance information is
uncertain; (13) the plan is unclear about what information DOT will need
to measure its performance; (14) GAO's previous work has indicated that
DOT has difficulty producing reliable data to document performance and
support decision-making at the program level; and (15) DOT's pilot
projects under the Results Act have acknowledged data limitations.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-208R
     TITLE:  Results Act: Observations on the Department of 
             Transportation's Draft Strategic Plan
      DATE:  07/30/97
   SUBJECT:  Strategic planning
             Congressional/executive relations
             Agency missions
             Program evaluation
             Public administration
             Intergovernmental relations
             Transportation safety
             Financial management systems
             Management information systems
             Internal controls

             
******************************************************************
** 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



September 1997


GAO/RCED-97-208R

DOT's Draft Strategic Plan

(348034)


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

  ATC - air traffic control
  BOP - Federal Bureau of Prisons
  CFO - Chief Financial Officers
  DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
  DOD - Department of Defense
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  DOT - x
  EPA - x
  FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
  NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  NPR - National Performance Review
  NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  SPAS - Safety Performance Analysis System
  TWA - x

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


B-277533

July 30, 1997

The Honorable Richard K.  Armey
Majority Leader
House of Representatives

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
 and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Subject:  Results Act:  Observations on the Department of
Transportation's Draft Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans
submitted by the Cabinet departments and selected major agencies for
consultation with the Congress as required by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act).  This report
is our response to that request concerning the Department of
Transportation (DOT). 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Specifically, you asked us to review DOT's draft plan and assess (1)
whether it fulfills the requirements of the Results Act and to
provide our views on its overall quality; (2) whether it reflects
DOT's key statutory authorities; (3) whether it reflects interagency
coordination for crosscutting programs, activities, or functions that
are similar or complementary to other agencies; (4) whether it
addresses management problems we have previously identified; and (5)
whether DOT's data and information systems are adequate for providing
reliable information for measuring results. 

We reviewed the draft strategic plan that DOT provided to
congressional committees on July 2, 1997.  It is important to
recognize that the final plan is not due to the Congress and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) until September 30, 1997. 
Thus, our findings reflect a "snapshot" of DOT's plan at this time. 
We recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process
and that DOT is continuing to revise the draft.  Furthermore, the
Results Act anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to
perfect the process and that the final plan would be refined in
future planning cycles. 

To address the five objectives, we interviewed DOT officials involved
in preparing the plan, reviewed supporting documents that DOT used to
prepare the plan, and relied on our knowledge of DOT's operations and
programs from our numerous reviews of the Department.  Additionally,
we reviewed the Results Act to determine whether DOT's draft
strategic plan complied with its requirements.  To assess the overall
quality of the plan and its components, we used OMB's guidance on
developing strategic plans\1 and our May 1997 guidance for
congressional review of the plans.\2 In determining whether DOT's
draft strategic plan reflects the Department's major statutory
responsibilities, we reviewed material in the explanatory notes in
DOT's 1998 budget for an overview of the Department's functions and
activities.  In addition, we reviewed a compilation of statutory
authorities prepared for the strategic planning process by DOT's
Office of the General Counsel.  We also consulted with the Office of
the General Counsel, and as you requested, we coordinated our review
with the Congressional Research Service.  To determine whether DOT
had adequate systems in place to provide reliable information on
performance, we relied on our prior reports and those from the
Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG). 


--------------------
\1 Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans and Annual
Performance Plans (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2, May 1997). 

\2 Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA:  Key Questions to Facilitate
Congressional Review (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997, version 1). 


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

Created in 1966 from eight other major departments and agencies, DOT
implements the nation's overall transportation policy and oversees
federal transportation programs.  With a budget of about $39 billion
in fiscal year 1997, DOT includes the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Maritime
Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), Research and Special Programs Administration, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, St.  Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, Surface Transportation Board, Transportation
Administrative Services Center, U.  S.  Coast Guard, and Office of
the Secretary. 

The Results Act is the legislative framework through which agencies
are required to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report
on the degree to which goals were met.  The act requires federal
agencies to develop strategic plans by September 30, 1997, that cover
a period of at least 5 years.  The Results Act requires that an
agency's strategic plan contain six key components:  (1) a
comprehensive agency mission statement; (2) agencywide long-term
goals and objectives for all major functions and operations; (3)
approaches (or strategies) and the various resources needed to
achieve the goals and objectives; (4) a description of the
relationship between the long-term goals and objectives and the
annual performance goals; (5) an identification of those key factors,
external to the agency and beyond its control, that could
significantly affect the achievement of its strategic goals; and (6)
a description of how program evaluations were used to establish or
revise strategic goals and a schedule for future program evaluations. 

DOT provided the Congress with a Department-wide draft strategic plan
for consultation on July 2, 1997.  The plan's vision, mission
statement, and five strategic goals are listed in table 1. 



                                Table 1
                
                Summary of Vision and Mission Statements
                   and Strategic Goals in DOT's Draft
                             Strategic Plan

Vision        A visionary and vigilant DOT leading the way to
statement     transportation excellence in the 21st century.
------------  --------------------------------------------------------
Mission       Serve the United States by ensuring a transportation
statement     system that meets our vital national interests and
              enhances the quality of life of the American people
              today and into the future.

Strategic,    Safety: Promote the public health and safety by working
long-term     toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths,
goals         injuries, and property damage.

              Mobility: Shape America's future by ensuring a
              transportation system that is accessible, seamless, and
              efficient and offers flexibility of choices.

              Economic growth and trade: Advance America's economic
              growth and competitiveness domestically and
              internationally through efficient and flexible
              transportation.

              Human and natural environment: Protect and enhance
              communities and the natural environment affected by
              transportation.

              National security: Advance the nation's vital security
              interests by ensuring that the transportation system is
              secure and available for defense mobility, ensuring that
              our borders are safe from illegal intrusion, and
              promoting worldwide economic growth and stability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

To its credit, DOT has undertaken a significant amount of work
collecting and analyzing information while preparing its draft
strategic plan.  The plan, however, does not reflect enough of this
information and, overall, is so general that clearly identifying the
Department's priorities is difficult.  Moreover, the plan does not
fulfill all of the requirements of the Results Act.  The draft plan
meets the act's requirements for (1) a mission statement, (2)
long-term goals, and (3) a description of program evaluations;
however, each of these elements has weaknesses, some more significant
than others.  In addition, the plan does not meet the act's
requirements to describe (1) strategies for achieving the goals, (2)
a linkage between DOT's long-term goals and annual performance goals,
and (3) those key external factors that could significantly affect
DOT's achieving its goals.  The overall quality of the plan could be
improved by adhering more closely to OMB's guidance for preparing
strategic plans and including more detailed information, such as
descriptions of the processes, the skills, the technology, and the
resources required to meet the goals and time frames for initiating
or completing significant actions. 

DOT's draft strategic plan appears to reflect the Department's key
statutory authorities, which are contained in an appendix to the
plan.  The plan is expansive enough to encompass almost all of the
Department's statutory authorities.  However, because the plan lacks
precision, these statutory authorities are reflected at a very high
level of generality.  The plan would be enhanced by clearly linking
the goals to the particular programs supported by the statutory
authorities contained in its appendix. 

The draft strategic plan does not show evidence that the Department
coordinated with other agencies that have programs and activities
that are crosscutting or similar to DOT's.  The plan recognizes that
there are other stakeholders for DOT's long-term goals and provides
for building or establishing partnerships with these federal, state,
and local governments and the transportation industry.  However,
except for the Department of Defense (DOD), the plan does not
identify specific stakeholders.  In addition, the plan does not
identify the crosscutting or overlapping programs, explain how the
activities and programs of other stakeholders could affect DOT's
achieving the goals, and describe how DOT plans to coordinate with
other stakeholders. 

DOT's draft strategic plan does not adequately address major
management challenges and high-risk areas that we have previously
identified in our reports and testimonies.  Addressing these issues
is critical to ensuring that strategies are in place to meet the
Department's goals.  In the critical issue of transportation safety
and security, the plan addresses some of our specific concerns about
aviation security but does not mention other important transportation
safety concerns.  Furthermore, the plan does not mention challenges
we identified to (1) improve the management of aviation, highway, and
transit programs and (2) meet the long-term funding needs of FAA and
Amtrak.  Finally, the plan does not provide sufficient details on the
improvements needed in its management and financial data or in its
organizational structure. 

DOT's ability to produce reliable performance information is
uncertain.  The plan is unclear about what information DOT will need
to measure its performance.  Furthermore, our previous work has
indicated that DOT has difficulty producing reliable data to document
performance and support decision-making at the program level. 
Similarly, DOT's pilot projects under the Results Act have
acknowledged data limitations. 


   DOT'S STRATEGIC PLAN DOES NOT
   FULFILL ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF
   THE RESULTS ACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Overall, DOT's draft strategic plan does not fulfill all of the
requirements of the Results Act.  The plan meets the requirements for
three critical components--a mission statement, long-term goals, and
a description of program evaluations.  The remaining three key
components--strategies for achieving the goals, the relationship
between long-term goals and annual performance goals, and the
identification of key external factors that could significantly
affect the achievement of the goals--do not meet the act's
requirements.  In addition, the plan is so general that it is
difficult to clearly identify the Department's priorities. 
Furthermore, although the Results Act requires that the plans cover a
minimum of 5 years, the plan does not specify the period of time
covered.  The overall quality of DOT's plan, including the sections
that meet the act's requirements, could be improved by adhering more
closely to OMB's guidance for preparing strategic plans and, in some
cases, incorporating summaries of the information that DOT considered
in developing the plan but did not include in the July 2 draft. 


      MISSION STATEMENT MEETS
      REQUIREMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

DOT's plan meets the Results Act's requirement that a strategic plan
contain a comprehensive mission statement that covers the major
functions and operations of the agency.  The mission statement (see
table 1) is broad enough to encompass all of the major functions and
operations of the Department and, in addition, it is
results-oriented.  OMB's guidance states that the mission statement
(1) should focus on the agency's core programs and activities and (2)
may include a discussion of enabling or authorizing legislation and
an identification of issues that the Congress specifically charged
the agency to address.  For example, DOT's enabling legislation
describes the Department's purpose as developing transportation
policies and programs that, among other things, "contribute to
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the
lowest cost."\3 The mission statement could be improved by including
such language from the Department's enabling legislation, which would
focus the mission statement more directly on the Department's core
activities. 


--------------------
\3 Section 101 of Title 49, United States Code. 


      LONG-TERM GOALS MEET
      REQUIREMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The Results Act requires strategic plans to contain long-term goals
and objectives for the major functions and operations of an agency. 
DOT's draft strategic plan meets this requirement--it contains five
long-term goals (see table 1) that encompass the Department's major
functions and operations and a set of outcome goals for each
long-term goal.  The long-term goals are within the Department's span
of influence as called for in OMB's guidance.  In addition, in
discussing the human and natural environment goal, the plan
acknowledges the Department's responsibility to mitigate and reduce
the negative environmental effects of transportation facilities.  To
address this issue, the plan includes an outcome goal to "reduce the
adverse effects of siting, construction and operation of
transportation facilities on the natural environment and
communities."

However, DOT's long-term goals could be improved by following OMB's
guidance to state all goals in a manner that (1) allows a future
assessment of whether they are achieved and (2) is sufficiently
precise to direct and guide an agency's staff toward fulfilling its
mission.  In some cases, it is clear how success in achieving a goal
will be determined.  For example, the plan explains that success in
achieving the safety goal will be measured by six quantitative
outcome goals, such as "reduce the number of transportation-related
fatalities." In other cases, however, how success will be measured is
unclear.  For example, success in achieving the mobility goal will be
measured by such outcome goals as "improve the structural integrity
and operational efficiency of the nation's transportation
infrastructure," and success in achieving the human and natural
environment goal will be measured by such outcome goals as "improve
the livability of communities through investments in transportation
facilities." The latter two outcome goals do not indicate how the
long-term goals are to be measured and what results will demonstrate
their achievement. 

Although the supporting documents that DOT used to prepare its draft
strategic plan indicate that the Department developed additional
information on how to measure each outcome goal, this information is
not included.  For example, DOT has identified more than 10 possible
measures for the outcome goal to "improve the structural integrity
and operational efficiency of the nation's transportation
infrastructure." These possible measures include the percentage of
the National Highway System in good or better condition, the
percentage of deficient bridges, and the percentage of transit
facilities in standard or better condition.  Including examples of
such information in DOT's strategic plan would clarify the meaning of
the Department's goals and allow it and the Congress to assess
whether those goals are being achieved. 

OMB's guidance also calls for goals to be sufficiently precise to
direct and guide staff toward actions that fulfill DOT's mission.  In
that connection, DOT's plan would be strengthened if it specified
which agencies or programs are expected to contribute to achieving
each of DOT's five strategic goals.  For the most part, the plan
discusses how the Department will achieve its goals in very general
terms.  For example, the plan states that DOT will achieve its safety
goal by having "all DOT activities intended to reduce or eliminate
transportation related incidents .  .  .  (1) incorporate human
factors considerations; (2) develop, deploy, and promote
cost-effective technology; (3) build partnerships to fully integrate
safety as a basic business principle; and (4) enhance delivery of
services through improved communications with our customers." This
statement does not contain enough detail to clarify the activities
required to attain DOT's long-term goals. 


      STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING
      GOALS DO NOT MEET
      REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

While DOT's plan lists six corporate management strategies for
achieving its long-term goals, it does not fulfill the requirements
of the Results Act to describe the operational processes, the skills,
the technology, and the resources required to meet them.  DOT's plan
could be improved by including this information in the discussion of
corporate management strategies.  For example, although one corporate
management strategy is to foster a diverse, highly skilled workforce,
the plan does not describe any specific skills needed or gaps in the
workforce that must be addressed for the plan to succeed.  According
to a senior Department official, during the process of preparing the
plan, DOT identified the need for staff with regulatory negotiations
skills and bilingual capabilities.  This information is not contained
in the draft plan.  Including such details would help DOT to meet the
act's requirements.  Similarly, the corporate strategy for
information technology calls for DOT to be "a recognized leader in
using state-of-the-art information technologies across the broad
spectrum of transportation." The strategy does not explain what
technologies are being referred to or the resources required to
enable DOT to be a recognized leader in their use. 

DOT's plan could also be improved by following OMB's guidance for
strategies.  First, the guidance calls for the strategies to provide
additional detail when achieving a goal is predicated on a
significant change in resource or technological levels or capacities. 
DOT's plan does not provide such additional detail.  In several
cases, we believe that such a discussion is warranted.  For example,
the plan says that DOT will implement the recommendations of the
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection and the
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.  We have
reported that the successful implementation of these recommendations
is contingent upon resolving a key issue--who will finance additional
security improvements--and developing the needed technology.\4 A
brief discussion of this constraint, including DOT's strategy for
obtaining the required financing and technology, would help readers
assess how realistic or likely the goal's achievement is. 

As previously mentioned, the plan calls for "incorporating human
factors considerations" in all of DOT's activities that are intended
to reduce or eliminate transportation-related incidents.  However,
implementing this element of the plan may require a difficult shift
from past priorities.  In 1996, we found that human factors work
within FAA lacked effective coordination.\5

Furthermore, FAA's fiscal year 1998 budget request for research on
human factors represents a decrease from the fiscal year 1997 budget
and less than half of what was appropriated for fiscal year 1995.  A
brief discussion of the resources for and priority of human factors
activities would be helpful. 

Second, OMB's guidance states that the strategies for achieving goals
should include a description of the process for communicating goals
throughout an agency and for assigning accountability to managers and
staff to achieve them.  DOT's draft strategic plan does not address
how its goals will be communicated to employees or how managers and
staff will be assigned accountability.  Assigning clear expectations
and accountability to employees so that they see how their jobs
relate to the Department's mission and goals can be useful in
implementing a strategic plan.  According to a senior DOT official,
the Department already has a mechanism that partly addresses this
issue--DOT's modal Administrators have annual performance plans and
target performance levels that are aligned with DOT's mission.  DOT's
Deputy Secretary tracks the Department's progress through monthly
meetings with the Administrators.  A brief explanation of how this
process will be refined in the light of the new strategic plan would
help DOT staff understand how DOT plans to assign accountability for
implementing its strategic plan. 

Finally, OMB'S guidance states that the strategies for achieving
goals should contain time frames for initiating or completing
significant actions and any assumptions or projections.  The plan
does not include such information.  It would be helpful, for example,
for the plan to include time frames for completing the air traffic
control (ATC) modernization program and improvements along Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor, both of which are long-term, multibillion-dollar
infrastructure projects. 

In several cases, the draft plan provided more specific information
on how DOT will achieve its long-term goals.  For example, DOT
intends to achieve the national security goal by implementing the
recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection and the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security.  As another example, DOT intends to achieve the
mobility goal by promoting, developing, and implementing solutions
using innovative technology to improve communications,
infrastructure, and operational efficiencies, such as intelligent
transportation systems, global-positioning satellites, the Internet,
and new pavement and bridge designs.  Including this type of
information throughout the plan would help DOT to direct or guide its
staff to accomplish its goals. 


--------------------
\4 Aviation Security:  Technology's Role in Addressing
Vulnerabilities (GAO/T-RCED-NSIAD-96-262, Sept.  19, 1996). 

\5 Human Factors:  Status of Efforts to Integrate Research on Human
Factors Into FAA's Activities (GAO/RCED-96-151, June 27, 1996). 


      PLAN DOES NOT LINK LONG-TERM
      GOALS TO ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
      GOALS AND PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

The plan does not describe how performance goals in the annual
performance plan will be related to the long-term goals in the
strategic plan, as required by the Results Act.\6 OMB's guidance
further states that the strategic plan is to briefly outline the
type, nature, and scope of the performance goals and the relationship
between the annual performance goals and the long-term goals.  The
Results Act requires the performance goals to cover each program
activity listed in the agency's budget, and by doing so, the
performance goals provide a direct link to an agency's day-to-day
activities.  DOT's plan does not describe performance goals or link
them to the long-term goals.  The plan states that DOT has not
developed its performance goals yet but intends to identify the goals
in its fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan due in September
1997.  The strategic plan would be improved by providing examples of
possible performance goals and indicating their relationship to
specific goals.  By omitting this information, DOT's strategic plan
does not link the long-term strategic goals to the Department's
programs. 


--------------------
\6 The Results Act requires OMB to have agencies prepare annual
performance plans beginning for fiscal year 1999.  This plan is to
contain annual performance goals and identify the performance
measures that an agency will use to assess its progress. 


      IDENTIFICATION OF KEY
      FACTORS EXTERNAL TO THE
      DEPARTMENT DOES NOT MEET
      REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

Recognizing that achieving a goal can be influenced by or predicated
on external conditions prevailing over the time period covered by the
plan, the Results Act requires strategic plans to identify those key
external factors beyond an agency's control that could significantly
affect the achievement of its long-term goals.  The draft plan does
not meet this requirement.  The plan identifies four external
factors--significant shifts in demographics, accelerated economic
growth and globalization, increasing concerns for safety and
security, and changing technological trends--but does not include
other key factors.  For example, we have identified several major
issues facing the Department that are significantly affected by
factors outside its control.  As discussed later, critical problems
in the long-term financing for FAA and Amtrak need to be addressed. 
Although successfully addressing these issues will require action by
the Congress, the plan does not identify this critical factor. 

This component of the plan could be improved by following OMB's
guidance, which calls for plans to contain a brief discussion of how
each key factor links to a particular goal and how the achievement of
that goal could be affected by the factor.  DOT's draft plan
discusses only one of the four key external factors it
identifies--demographics.  The plan describes some demographic
trends, such as the aging population and population growth, that
could affect DOT's ability to accomplish its safety and mobility
goals.  However, the plan does not discuss how these goals could be
affected by the demographic trends identified. 

As previously mentioned, the plan provides no discussion of the other
three key factors it identifies.  A discussion of each factor would
help readers understand what assumptions DOT made in developing its
goals and how their attainment might be affected.  For example, a
discussion of changing technological trends would be helpful. 
Satellite navigation, intelligent highway systems, and the increasing
availability of telecommunications alternatives to transportation
could have enormous implications for the degree to which the
Department is able to accomplish its strategic goals.  The plan
alludes to this in a discussion of strategies for accomplishing the
goals when it states that DOT "will explore the cyber frontier,
crossing old boundaries to discover new, virtual modes of
transporting people and information that transcend time and space."
The meaning of this statement, however, is not clear and requires
more discussion. 

The supporting documents that DOT used to prepare the plan indicate
that the Department analyzed six external factors--political,
economic, social, environmental, security, and technology trends--in
terms of their impact on transportation and on the Department.  Some
demographic information from this analysis was included in the plan,
but information on other factors was not.  In its analysis of five
technology areas--(1) information and communication; (2) advanced
materials for constructing, maintaining, and repairing transportation
infrastructure and vehicles; (3) energy and environment; (4) human
factors; and (5) modeling, simulation, and industrial design--DOT
identified the technology areas' possible effects on DOT, such as the
need to place greater emphasis on specialized or customized
transportation as the population of elderly persons increases and the
need to revisit and tighten some safety and fuel economy standards as
a result of new power systems and lighter-weight cars and trucks
being developed to improve energy efficiency and environmental
compatibility.  The plan could be improved by including summaries of
such information for each key factor. 


      PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPONENT
      COULD BE IMPROVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6

DOT's draft strategic plan discusses the program evaluations used in
establishing the goals and a schedule for future evaluations, as
required by the Results Act.  This component of the plan, however,
could be improved by following OMB's guidance, which calls for
including (1) the general scope of and methodology for planned
evaluations, (2) the key issues to be addressed, and (3) a schedule
for future evaluations.  DOT's plan lists only titles for the
evaluations scheduled for 1997 and 1998 for NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, and
FAA.  For example, NHTSA's evaluations include "motor vehicle content
labeling" and an "evaluation of passenger air bag cutoff switches."
Such information is insufficient to determine the scope and
methodology or the key issues to be addressed.  Furthermore, without
this additional information, it is difficult to determine how or if
some scheduled evaluations--such as motor vehicle content labeling,
the odometer fraud study, and the theft prevention report to the
Congress--relate to DOT's goals. 


      OBSERVATIONS ON THE OVERALL
      QUALITY OF THE PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.7

We recognize that DOT's strategic plan is a draft that the Department
expects to revise before submitting it to OMB and the Congress in
September 1997.  However, the draft we reviewed is so general that
almost any activity the Department undertakes could be considered to
fit in the strategic plan.  As a result of this generality, the plan
does not clearly set priorities for the activities or chart a clear
course for accomplishing the Department's mission.  Our work has
shown that when DOT was preparing elements of the plan, it collected
and analyzed information in significantly greater detail than the
plan reflects.  While extensive details would detract from the plan
by making it overly lengthy, summaries of what DOT considered in
preparing the plan and specific examples of what programs and actions
DOT intends to undertake would greatly enhance the plan's usefulness. 

Furthermore, DOT's draft plan does not identify the time frames for
accomplishing the long-term goals.  The Results Act requires a
strategic plan to cover a minimum of 5 years.  OMB's guidance calls
for descriptions of how the plan will be achieved, including
schedules for initiating or completing significant actions.  The plan
lacks this information, as we mentioned previously.  Without knowing
the time frame or the schedule for completing activities, it is
difficult to assess whether the plan is reasonable or realistic. 
Furthermore, without an ending date, the Congress and the public do
not know when they can expect to hold the Department accountable for
accomplishing the long-term goals in its plan. 


   PLAN REFLECTS KEY STATUTORY
   AUTHORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOT's strategic plan, with limited exceptions, appears to reflect the
statutory authorities contained in the compilation attached as an
appendix to the plan.  The plan is expansive enough to encompass
almost all of DOT's statutory authorities.  However, because of the
plan's lack of precision, these statutory authorities are reflected
at a very high level of generality.  Furthermore, the plan does not
appear to reflect the Department's authorities in connection with
commercial space transportation and fuel efficiency standards. 

The draft plan could be improved by linking its stated strategic or
outcome goals to the particular programs supported by the statutory
authorities contained in the appendix.  For example, one of the
outcome goals under DOT's safety goal is to reduce the number of
transportation-related fatalities.  However, the plan contains no
explicit references to the programs administered by NHTSA or the
statutory provisions authorizing such programs, despite the fact that
the vast majority of transportation-related fatalities occur on the
nation's highways.  Similarly, one of the outcome goals under the
Department's mobility goal is to "improve the structural integrity
and operational efficiency of the nation's transportation
infrastructure." However, the plan contains no explicit references to
such major infrastructure initiatives as the National Highway System
or ATC modernization or the statutory provisions related to these
initiatives.  The Results Act does not require such linkages, but we
believe that including such linkages in the plan may help explain the
Department's mission and goals.\7

The appendix on statutory authorities does not include any reference
to the Surface Transportation Board or the Commercial Space Program. 
An official from DOT's Office of the General Counsel stated that the
statutes related to the Surface Transportation Board were omitted
from that appendix because the Board operates as an entity
independent of DOT.  However, the body of the strategic plan lists
the Surface Transportation Board as one of the organizations that
operates collaboratively under a departmental mission.  Therefore, it
is not clear whether DOT's strategic plan encompasses the Surface
Transportation Board.  That official also acknowledged that the
Commercial Space Program is a major program and that relevant
statutes should have been included in the compilation of statutory
authorities. 


--------------------
\7 OMB Circular A-11 states that an agency's mission statement may
include a brief discussion of the agency's enabling or authorizing
legislation; this suggestion, however, does not extend to the
statement of goals. 


   PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS
   CROSSCUTTING ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The draft strategic plan does not show evidence that DOT coordinated
with other agencies that have programs and activities that are
crosscutting or similar to DOT's.  According to a senior DOT
official, coordination is an ongoing activity and no specific
coordination was done in preparing the draft plan.  The plan
recognizes that there are other stakeholders for DOT's long-term
goals and provides for building or establishing partnerships with
federal, state, and local governments and the transportation
industry.  However, except for DOD, the plan does not identify
specific stakeholders.  In addition, the plan does not identify (1)
which programs are crosscutting or overlapping, (2) how the programs
and activities of the stakeholders could affect the goals'
achievement, and (3) how DOT expects to coordinate with its
stakeholders.  For example, the plan does not mention such other
important stakeholders as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
which has responsibilities that affect DOT's human and natural
environment goal.  A page is reserved in the draft plan for
stakeholders' comments, which may contain this kind of information. 

The plan includes the following three outcome goals for its national
security goal that specifically support DOD's needs: 

  -- Ensure the readiness and capability of commercial transportation
     to meet national defense needs. 

  -- Ensure that transportation infrastructure and technology are
     adequate to facilitate military logistics during mobility,
     training exercises, and mobilization. 

  -- Maintain the readiness of resources owned, managed, or
     coordinated by DOT that are necessary to support the President's
     National Security Strategy and other defense-related plans. 

However, the plan does not explain what DOD's needs are and the
implications for DOT's programs.  In supporting documents, DOT
observed that DOD may increase its reliance on commercial transport
of personnel and equipment and identified a number of implications
for DOT's programs.  The plan does not mention this issue.  A brief
discussion of DOD's programs and their requirements and how they
affect DOT's strategic plan would help explain the linkage between
the two Departments' programs and activities and how changes in the
way DOD operates will affect DOT. 

The supporting documents that DOT used to prepare the plan indicate
that the Department considered several other crosscutting issues. 
For example, these documents mentioned EPA's revisions to the ozone
and particulate matter standards proposed in December 1996 and
identified the potential effect on transportation and the
implications for DOT's programs.  This issue was not mentioned in
DOT's plan.  DOT's plan would benefit from a brief discussion of how
its programs and goals relate to other agencies and how it ensured
that the goals in the plan complement, rather than conflict with,
other federal agencies' programs and activities. 


   PLAN DOES NOT ADEQUATELY
   ADDRESS MAJOR MANAGEMENT
   CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

DOT's draft strategic plan does not adequately address the major
management challenges and high-risk areas that we and others have
identified.  Addressing these issues is critical to ensuring that
strategies are in place to meet DOT's goals.  Earlier this year, we
testified on four critical management issues facing the Department: 
(1) enhancing transportation safety and security; (2) improving the
management of aviation, highway, and transit programs; (3) meeting
the long-term funding needs of FAA and Amtrak; and (4) having an
appropriate organizational structure and adequate financial and other
management information.\8 We also identified critical information
technology management issues facing DOT and other agencies.  While we
recognize that adequately addressing many of these problems will take
concerted action by the Department, the Congress, and other affected
parties, the Department's strategic plan can do more to make clear
its priorities and its commitment to meeting these challenges. 

First, a critical issue facing the Department is ensuring the safety
and security of travelers on the nation's airways, highways, and
waterways.  DOT's strategic plan reflects this issue in two
goals--safety and national security.  While the plan addresses some
of our specific concerns about aviation security, it does not mention
our specific concerns about overall transportation safety.  Over the
years, we have identified areas in which DOT can do more to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of its transportation security and
safety programs: 

  -- We have made recommendations about security vulnerabilities in
     the aviation system--checked and carry-on baggage, mail, and
     cargo--and steps that could be undertaken to improve security.\9
     The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (the
     Gore Commission), formed after the crash of TWA Flight 800, made
     more than 30 security recommendations in February 1997.  We
     believe that the Gore Commission's recommendations are a good
     start toward an evolutionary process of reaching agreement on
     the goals and objectives for improving our aviation security
     system.  Effective implementation of these recommendations
     requires the various federal agencies, local authorities, and
     the aviation industry--most importantly, airlines and
     airports--to work together.  DOT's draft plan discusses several
     activities to achieve its national security goal that reflect
     our concerns.  These activities include (1) developing and
     implementing security enhancements; (2) implementing the Gore
     Commission's recommendations; (3) completing vulnerability
     assessments and implementing recommendations; and (4) developing
     and maintaining partnerships with other federal agencies,
     state/local governments, the transportation industry, and
     foreign governments. 

  -- To enhance transportation safety, we have consistently
     identified the need to improve federal oversight of air travel
     by (1) targeting FAA's inspections to the areas of highest risk,
     (2) enhancing the reliability of safety data, and (3) improving
     the training of inspectors.  Over the years, we have suggested
     that FAA focus its resources on such areas of concern as new
     entrant and commuter airlines and aging aircraft.  In addition,
     improving safety on the nation's highways, where over 40,000
     people are killed annually, requires strong, effective
     partnerships among federal, state, and local governments.  We
     have pointed out that increasing the use of safety belts is the
     most effective way to lower the nation's death toll from highway
     accidents.\10 We have suggested that the Congress consider
     encouraging the states to enact primary enforcement laws that
     allow police officers to stop and ticket a vehicle's operator
     solely because the occupants are not using their safety belts. 
     We also believe that such laws should cover all of the occupants
     of all the vehicles having safety belts.  We also recommended
     that the Secretary of Transportation provide special emphasis
     and targeted programs for increasing the use of safety belts by
     the occupants of light trucks.  DOT's strategic plan is vague on
     how the Department will achieve its safety goal and does not
     mention these related issues. 

Second, DOT can do more to improve its management of aviation,
highway, and transit programs to ensure that limited funds are
effectively and efficiently used.  DOT's plan includes infrastructure
in its mobility goal but provides too few details to fully address
our concerns.  For example, FAA's multibillion-dollar program to
modernize the ATC system has been plagued with cost overruns,
schedule delays, and shortfalls in performance.  Because of the size,
complexity, cost, and problem-plagued past of the ATC modernization,
we designated it as a high-risk information technology initiative in
1995 and again in 1997.\11 DOT's strategic plan does not mention the
ATC modernization.  As another example, major surface transportation
projects, each costing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars,
are continuing to incur cost increases, experience delays, and have
difficulties acquiring needed funding commitments.  We believe that
FHWA can do more to address the problem of cost growth by working
with the states to improve the cost management of large-dollar
highway construction projects.  Some of our concerns are reflected in
the plan's discussion of the mobility goal, which lists such
activities to achieve this goal as (1) developing and promoting
innovative financing techniques and increasing flexible funding and
(2) "maximizing the benefits of the planning process to improve
project selection by techniques such as cost-benefit analysis."
However, the list of activities provides no details on how they will
be accomplished or what programs and modes of transportation will be
affected. 

Third, critical transportation financing issues--meeting the
long-term funding needs of FAA and Amtrak--face DOT and the Congress. 
Each issue presents formidable challenges that will stretch limited
resources and will require long-term strategies to successfully
address.  DOT's strategic plan does not raise these issues.  FAA
estimates that its needs will exceed projected funding levels by
about $13 billion over the next 5 years.  We believe that determining
how best to finance FAA is a complex problem that requires careful
study and good cost data.  To assist in finding solutions to FAA's
long-term financing needs, the Congress formed the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission, which is scheduled to make its
recommendations by August 1997.  Deciding among various financing
alternatives for FAA will involve trade-offs among such factors as
the efficient use of the airport and airway system, fairness to
system users, and the effect on competition.  To effectively design
any new financing system, FAA needs better cost data to appropriately
allocate costs among users.\12 With respect to Amtrak, we recently
reported that its financial condition is very precarious and that as
currently constituted and funded, Amtrak will continue to require
substantial federal financial support well into the next century.\13
Amtrak is not mentioned in DOT's plan. 

Fourth, DOT's ability to effectively address many of these
aforementioned issues depends on having a supportive organizational
structure, implementing information management technology reforms,
and improving its management and financial data.  The plan does not
provide sufficient details for addressing our concerns in these
areas.  DOT can do more to develop an appropriate organizational
structure to achieve the most cost-effective delivery of services and
ensure the proper use of federal funds.  We have reported that
opportunities exist to achieve these objectives by (1) examining the
appropriateness of reorganizing the surface transportation
administrations and their field office structures, (2) making changes
to FAA's management structure and organizational culture, and (3)
identifying additional opportunities to streamline the Coast Guard's
operations.  The plan mentions the need for the appropriate
organizational infrastructure and processes to achieve DOT's
strategic goals but does not explain what constitutes an appropriate
infrastructure and processes or how they will be established. 

Moreover, while DOT's plan highlights information technology as a
critical component of its corporate management strategy, the plan
does not clearly discuss how the Department intends to implement the
information management technology reforms called for in the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.  These acts
direct agencies to implement a framework of modern technology
management based on practices followed by leading private and public
organizations that have successfully used technology to improve
performance and help meet strategic goals.  Furthermore, DOT, like
many other agencies, will face emerging management challenges in
implementing modern technology and resolving the need for computer
systems to be changed to accommodate dates beyond the year 1999, the
"year 2000 problem." Yet DOT's plan does not discuss how it intends
to address the "year 2000 problem" as well as any significant
information security weaknesses--two issues that we have identified
as high-risk across the government.\14

In addition, DOT lacks the fully reliable financial management
information necessary to ensure that federal funds are properly
managed and reliable financial reports are prepared.  The lack of
such information could affect the implementation of the Department's
strategic plan.  For fiscal year 1996, DOT prepared its first
Department-wide financial statement.  DOT's OIG undertook an audit of
the Department-wide balance sheet but was unable to provide an
opinion about its reliability because of inadequate records and other
deficiencies.  Specifically, the OIG was unable to validate the value
of property, equipment, operating materials, and supplies reported to
be worth $25.8 billion because of inadequacies in the supporting
documentation and unreconciled discrepancies between the summary
accounts and their supporting details.  In evaluating DOT's internal
controls, the OIG identified 11 significant internal control
weaknesses and 13 additional conditions deemed important for
reporting.  Overall, the OIG made 72 recommendations to strengthen
DOT's internal controls and improve the accuracy of its financial
reporting.  DOT's plan does not address these issues. 

DOT faces several important challenges in addressing its financial
management problems, including (1) correcting the known weaknesses so
that it can produce reliable, auditable financial statements; (2)
fully implementing new federal accounting standards to meet federal
financial management goals; (3) implementing and maintaining
financial management systems that comply substantially with the
federal requirements for financial management systems, applicable
federal accounting standards, and the U.S.  Government Standard
General Ledger at the transaction level; and (4) submitting fully
audited financial statements that cover all accounts and associated
activities.  DOT's plan does not address these financial management
issues. 


--------------------
\8 Federal Management:  Addressing Management Issues at the
Department of Transportation (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-97-172, May 21, 1997). 

\9 See, for example, Aviation Security:  Additional Actions Needed to
Meet Domestic and International Challenges (GAO/RCED-94-38, Jan.  27,
1994) and Aviation Security:  Technology's Role in Addressing
Vulnerabilities (GAO/T-RCED-NSIAD-96-262, Sept.  19, 1996). 

\10 Motor Vehicle Safety:  Comprehensive State Programs Offer Best
Opportunity for Increasing Use of Safety Belts (GAO/RCED-96-24, Jan. 
3, 1996). 

\11 High-Risk Series:  An Overview (GAO/HR-95-1, Feb.  1995) and
High-Risk Series:  Information Management and Technology
(GAO/HR-97-9, Feb.  1997). 

\12 Air Traffic Control:  Improved Cost Information Needed to Make
Billion-Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions (GAO/AIMD-97-20,
Jan.  22, 1997). 

\13 See, for example, Transportation Financing:  Challenges in
Meeting Long-Term Funding Needs for FAA, Amtrak, and the Nation's
Highways (GAO/T-RCED-97-151, May 7, 1997) and Intercity Passenger
Rail:  The Financial Viability of Amtrak Continues to Be Threatened
(GAO/T-RCED-97-94, Mar.  13, 1997). 

\14 GAO High-Risk Series (GAO/HR-97-20SET, Feb.  1997). 


   DOT'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE
   RELIABLE PERFORMANCE
   INFORMATION IS UNCERTAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

DOT's ability to produce reliable data to measure its progress in
achieving the plan's long-term goals is uncertain.  The plan is
unclear about what information will be needed to measure performance. 
However, we have reported serious problems with DOT's information
resources and database management and identified these problems as
one of several top management issues facing the Department.\15 These
problems adversely affect the Department's ability to monitor and
evaluate the performance of U.S.  transportation systems as well as
identify and set priorities for the investment needs for the
infrastructure. 

Producing reliable data to document performance and support
decision-making at the program level will be a challenge for DOT. 
For example, over the years we have reported on the limitations of
aviation safety databases.  In 1991, FAA began developing the Safety
Performance Analysis System (SPAS), which draws on information from
several safety-related databases to establish better priorities for
FAA's inspections.  However, SPAS is not expected to be fully
operational until 1999.  Furthermore, some databases that may provide
source data for SPAS contain incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate
data.  FAA has recently developed and is implementing a strategy to
improve the quality of data to ensure that these source databases
provide more reliable information.  The success of this strategy is
critical to SPAS' becoming an effective tool for focussing on
outcomes by targeting resources to high-risk activities. 

We also reported on the limitations in the National Transportation
Safety Board's (NTSB) information on airline accidents, upon which
FAA relies.  In examining the safety performance of new airlines, we
found that NTSB, the official source of information on airline
accidents, defines accidents as events in which individuals are
killed or suffer serious injury or in which the aircraft is
substantially damaged.  By NTSB's definition, accidents can range
from fatal crashes in which the aircraft is destroyed and all crew
and passengers aboard are killed, to events in which only one person
suffers a broken bone and the aircraft is not damaged, to still
others in which the aircraft is substantially damaged, but no
fatalities or serious injuries occur.\16

DOT's pilot projects under the Results Act have acknowledged
limitations with their data.  For example, NHTSA uses the General
Estimates System for statistics on motor vehicle accidents.  This
database contains information from a nationally representative sample
of police-reported accidents.  Various sources, however, suggest that
about half of the motor vehicle crashes in the country are not
reported to police and that the majority of these unreported crashes
involve minor property damage and no significant personal injury.  A
NHTSA study of injuries from motor vehicle accidents estimated the
total count of nonfatal injuries at over 5 million compared with the
General Estimates System's estimate of 3.2 million for the same year. 
NHTSA intends to study the unreported injury problem. 

Another DOT pilot project under the Results Act--the U.S.  Coast
Guard's Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection
program--also reported similar limitations with its data.  For its
goal related to deaths and injuries, the Coast Guard found problems
with the reliability of reporting injuries.  The Coast Guard reported
that less serious injuries, in particular, were substantially
underreported and that the agency lacked data to determine the
severity of injuries.\17

Once DOT develops its final performance measures, it may need to
consider appropriate modifications to its database systems to ensure
that they include the needed data.  In addition, as required by the
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, program, accounting, and budget
systems should be integrated to facilitate the systematic measurement
and reporting of performance data. 


--------------------
\15 Federal Management:  Addressing Management Issues at the
Department of Transportation (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-97-172, May 21, 1997). 

\16 Aviation Safety:  New Airlines Illustrate Long-Standing Problems
in FAA's Inspection Program (GAO/RCED-97-2, Oct.  17, 1996). 

\17 R.  Kowalewski, "Using Outcome Information to Redirect Programs: 
A Case Study of the Coast Guard's Pilot Project Under the Government
Performance and Results Act" (U.S.  Coast Guard, Office of Marine
Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, Apr.  1996). 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOT for review and
comment.  (DOT's comments are in the enclosure.) DOT agreed with our
observations and pointed out that it will consider our comments along
with those from stakeholders when revising its draft strategic plan. 
Specifically, DOT agreed with our observations that the strategic
plan could be strengthened by (1) identifying the scope and
methodology of future program evaluations, (2) specifying the time
period covered by the plan, and (3) including information on
coordination with other federal agencies.  DOT stated that it intends
to include such information in the next draft of the plan.  While not
disagreeing with our observations concerning major management issues
and the Department's data, DOT pointed out that these issues might be
more appropriately addressed outside of the strategic plan.  DOT
provided several technical comments that we included as appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives; the Ranking Minority Members of your
committees; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the Secretary of
Transportation; and the Director, OMB.  Copies will be made available
to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
Phyllis Scheinberg, Janet Barbee, Helen Desaulniers, Sharon Dyer,
David Hooper, Teresa Spisak, and John Thomson. 

John H.  Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation Issues

Enclosure




(See figure in printed edition.)Enclosure I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
============================================================== Letter 



(See figure in printed edition.)


*** End of document. ***