TABLE 1 GAO DIVISIONS AND ISSUE AREAS GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION (GGD) Financial Institutions and Markets Tax Policy and Administration Administration of Justice International Trade, Finance, and Competitiveness Federal Human Resource Management Government Business Operations HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES (HEHS) Income Security Federal Health Care Delivery Health Financing and Policy Education and Employment NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (NSIAD) National Security Analysis Military Operations and Capabilities Acquisition Policy, Technology and Competitiveness Systems Development and Production Defense and NASA Management International Affairs RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RCED) Energy and Science Food and Agriculture Transportation and Telecommunications Housing and Community Development Environmental Protection Natural Resources Management ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (AIMD) Budget Issues Corporate Audits Defense Audits Civil Audits Legislative Review and Audit Oversight Central Core Group Defense and Security Information Systems General Government Information Systems Human Resources Information Systems Resources, Community, and Economic Development Information Systems PROGRAM EVALUATION AND METHODOLOGY (PEMD) Program Evaluation and Methodology NOTE: GAO also has a small Office of Special Investigations that is classified as an issue area. GAO's issue area staffs produce most of the reports and testimony that GAO issues. Through its first four decades, GAO's investigators served on a general investigative staff. Later, GAO assigned the individuals auditing and evaluating government to civil or defense-related units, and within those units they specialized in studying particular government organizations. GAO initiated the current structure of divisions and issue areas in the 1970s, hoping to bring together people working on government programs and issues related to a particular public purpose -- e.g., housing or economic development -- that cuts across organizational lines. For many years, GAO relied heavily on auditors and evaluators who rotated among program or issue areas and could be assigned to a variety of areas and types of studies. But in the last five years, it has built technical and program expertise in specific issue areas partly by having staff members remain in an issue area for a longer time, rather than rotating to another division or issue area. GAO's field offices have witnessed a parallel development. Created to address demands for wide-ranging research and investigations during the New Deal and World War II, GAO's field offices now number 14, with 11 "sub-offices" (GAO plans to close 3 field offices and 5 sub-offices in the next three years) (see Table 2). Until the last few years, evaluators in the field were generalists who applied their auditing and research skills across a wide spectrum of programs and issues. Under GAO's new concept of "core" teams, field staff are assigned to particular issue areas that generally relate to their previous concentrations of work and areas of expertise and, where applicable, the predominant government activities in their geographic locations. Generally, staff teams in several field offices are assigned to work with each issue area. This arrangement is intended to allow issue area directors to manage more directly the work in the field; to nourish greater familiarity with, and expertise on, specific issue areas in the field staffs; and to foster closer, longer-term relationships between field and headquarters staffs. GAO is currently investing in communications and information technology to give its employees greater capacity, increase their effectiveness and efficiency, and improve links among headquarters and field offices. The planned agency-wide computer network is not expected to be fully operating until the end of fiscal year 1995. GAO has recently installed video tele-conferencing facilities in headquarters and field offices, allowing staff members and others to share information and interact more effectively. As GAO develops improved, state-of-the art communications systems and information technology, it should be able to achieve broader, faster transmission of data and written work among GAO employees on a project, thus reducing the time involved in preparing and reviewing work (see Chapter IV on GAO work processes). The advent of improved computer systems at GAO will allow auditors and evaluators to gain access to a larger amount of data and analyze it more quickly and easily, and could speed the distribution of reports, testimony, and other products that Congress requests of GAO. Improved communications and information technology also are likely to contribute to changes in the design of internal work processes, the mix and type of skills that GAO needs, and the type of products that will be most helpful to Congress.32 32 Opportunities for the Use of Information Resources and Advanced Technologies in Congress: A Study for the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, by Robert Lee Chartrand and Robert C. Ketchum of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, October 1993, provides valuable background and findings in this area. Since 1992, GAO has cut its staff by more than 10 percent, to its current level of about 4,500 employees. In line with the administration's goal of a 12 percent cut in executive branch personnel in this decade, the comptroller general has established a total goal of a 12 percent reduction from its 1992 base-level employment by 1996. In addition to closing or consolidating field offices, GAO instituted a hiring freeze in February 1992 and implemented an early retirement incentive program approved in the fiscal year 1994 Legislative Appropriations Act. More than 400 GAO employees, many of them highly ranked, accepted the incentive and resigned or retired by the January 1, 1994 deadline. The retirements, affecting every level of the workforce, have reduced the average grade level somewhat and opened up positions at high levels at GAO. The reduced staff size, combined with the retirements, creates both challenges and opportunities for GAO in managing, developing, and directing its staff resources. The CFO Act created new demands for experienced accountants and financial management experts at GAO, prompting its hiring of 115 people with accounting and financial systems backgrounds, including 51 Certified Public Accountants, in fiscal years 1990-91. Similarly, emerging demands on GAO will require a shift in its priorities for staff in the coming years. In recent years, GAO has sought more highly specialized, senior-level technical staff, for a variety of reasons: the increasingly complicated, specialized, technical work that its employees now must perform; pressures to reduce its budget and workforce, all of which make each new employee that much more valuable; and the new perspectives that experienced senior-level hires from outside the organization can bring. Generally, GAO has attracted top graduates from accounting, public administration, and social science programs in the nation's colleges and universities, according to interviews with GAO representatives and their professional peers outside the agency. The organization has been known for challenging and visible assignments, high professional standards, and opportunities for advancement. Generally, interviewees believe that GAO still attracts bright college graduates and master's and doctoral degree candidates, as well as talented people at a more advanced point in their careers. Traditionally, GAO has promoted from within. Many high-ranking employees have spent their entire careers at GAO. Typically, the agency has started auditors and evaluators at the entry level, .then trained them for audits and investigations. Since 1988, GAO has maintained an internal Training Institute as the central provider and coordinator of training for employees. All evaluators and evaluator-related employees must complete 80 hours of Continuing Professional Education credits every two years. The Training Institute has developed an extensive curriculum for evaluators. Each GAO employee receives at least an annual performance appraisal, and GAO also has a pay-for-performance ranking system. Employees have raised various concerns about the appraisal and pay-for-performance systems. At a House Government Operations Committee hearing on October 28, 1993, representatives of GAO's Mid-Level Employees Council and its Career Level Council raised several points, including: the effects of current employee performance systems on employee teamwork and morale; the possibility of bonuses for teams rather than individuals; the impact of including employees and their supervisors in the same broad bands and bonus pools; limitations on advancement opportunities at GAO; pressures for higher productivity created by downsizing; the need to improve GAO facilities and computer and information systems; and levels of communication and trust throughout the agency. The pay-for-performance system is an important area for internal GAO review, particularly in light of employee concerns about its effects on relative pay and morale and the seeming conflict with the emphasis on teamwork at GAO." "GAO's Quality Council has recently announced as one of its five priorities the development of a pay-for-performance compensation system for evaluators and attorneys that reflects quality management concepts. GAO Management News, May 9-13, 1994, p. 3, and May 23-27, 1994, p. 2. 89-838 98-5 12 III. GAO'S MISSION AND ROLES A review of GAO's 73 years of history shows that GAO's mission and roles have been largely shaped by legislative history and GAO's place in legislative-executive interactions. In recent years, two internal processes at GAO have been influencing its direction: GAO's strategic planning process and its total quality management (TQM) initiative. In this chapter, the panel presents findings and recommendations on GAO's mission and roles, as well as the contribution of its TQM and strategic planning processes. GAO's Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles As part of its TQM effort in 1990-91, GAO produced the following definitions of its vision, mission, and guiding principles: The vision: "We aspire to be the world's leading organization engaged in audit, evaluation, and public policy analysis." The mission: "We seek to achieve honest, efficient management and full accountability throughout government. We serve the public interest by providing members of Congress and others who make policy with accurate information, unbiased analysis, and objective recommendations on how to best use public resources in support of the security and well being of the American people." The guiding principles: "Commitment to quality is the single most important principle governing our work. We define quality as work that is objective and independently derived, accurate, timely, and meaningful, and presented in a way that is most useful to responsible officials." "We value our people and the diversity they bring. We are committed to continuing selfexamination to achieve organizational, procedural, and individual improvement. "34 GAO's mission and vision statements draw elements from its legislated mandate (although neither the vision nor mission statement precisely mirrors the functions that the law directs GAO to perform audit, expenditure analysis, program evaluation, legal reviews, and other functions enumerated in Chapter II). However, the vision and mission statements -- depending on interpretation -- suggest roles and functions that reach beyond those the panel finds appropriate or feasible for GAO. - "See GAO, Continuous Improvement: The Quality Challenge, "Quality Improvement Plan: Early Implementation" (GAO/QMG-92-1), November 1991, and "Quality Improvement Plan: An Update" (GAO/QMG-93-1), March 1993. |