Thompson Letter on GPRA - Justice
August 17, 1999
The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear General Reno:
As you know, the Congress is focused on ensuring that the federal government delivers better results to its citizens and taxpayers. The Congress has enacted a statutory framework to achieve these results. This statutory framework includes the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); financial management statutes, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act; and information resources management statutes, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. Each of these reforms aims at achieving more efficient and effective performance throughout the federal government.
As part of our oversight agenda, the Committee has developed information on how effectively the Department of Justice is using the above statutory tools to improve its performance in several key areas such as becoming more results-oriented and resolving long-standing problems of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The purpose of this letter is to share with you the information we have developed and obtain your response to certain questions pertaining to it. With this dialog as a start, we hope to work with you on a continuing basis to ensure that the Justice Department delivers the best possible results for the American people.
Performance plan assessment
The Congress continues to look closely at how well departments and agencies are implementing GPRA. At the request of this Committee and others, GAO recently completed an assessment of the Justice Department’s annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 2000. According to GAO, Justice’s FY 2000 plan "represents a moderate improvement" over its FY 1999 plan and "indicates some degree of progress" in addressing weaknesses GAO identified in the 1999 plan.
According to GAO, the FY 2000 plan’s major strengths are that it provides a clear relationship between goals and measures; contains goals and measures that are quantifiable, with related baselines and targets; and discusses strategies to ensure the credibility of performance data. GAO found that the FY 2000 plan had two key weaknesses. One was the failure to sufficiently identify reenforcing performance goals and measures among Justice components that perform crosscutting functions. For example, the plan does not establish complimentary performance indicators for the three different components that have responsibilities for reducing health care fraud. The other key weakness is the failure to consistently show the relationship between program funding and performance. This problem is most pronounced in the case of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Several other issues concerning Justice’s FY 2000 plan deserve emphasis. One is the need for some Justice components to develop more results-oriented performance targets. A recently completed GAO review of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) strategies and operations in the 1990s illustrates this need. GAO’s findings indicate that, while DEA’s funding almost doubled and its staffing increased substantially over the past decade, the agency achieved no demonstrable results. The supply and use of illegal drugs remained largely unchanged during the decade and persisted at very high levels. GAO testified that–
. . . DEA has not developed measurable performance targets for disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking organizations. Without such performance targets, it is difficult for DEA, the Department of Justice, Congress, and the public to quantitatively assess (1) how effective DEA has been in using resources provided by Congress to achieve its strategic goals and (2) the extent to which DEA’s programs and initiatives in the 1990s have contributed to reducing the illegal drug supply.
In addition to setting more results-oriented performance targets, Justice must develop good performance data since, according to GAO, there is little confidence that its current performance information is credible. For example, GAO notes that Justice has a strategy to deter illegal entry across the southwest border that includes the following results-oriented goals: fewer aliens will be able to cross the border illegally; fewer aliens will try to immigrate illegally; and, consequently, the number of illegal aliens in the United States will decrease. However, according to GAO, Justice lacks specific data and indicators to systematically evaluate the success of this strategy.
Need to implement audit recommendations on major management problems
One area where there have been too few results is solving major management challenges that seem to persist year after year at most agencies, including the Justice Department.
A problem area of particular concern is management of forfeited assets by the Department of Justice, and the Treasury Department. As you know, the two departments maintain separate forfeited asset funds that have inventories totaling about $1.8 billion. GAO designated forfeited asset management at both departments as a "high-risk" area in its original 1990 high-risk list. This problem has languished on the high-risk list ever since, although it should have been resolved long ago. According to GAO, there is no acceptable reason for the long delays in completing the actions necessary to remove this high-risk designation.
Nevertheless, the forfeited asset programs continue to have significant weaknesses, including inadequate asset forfeiture information systems and a disclaimer of opinion on Justice asset forfeiture program’s financial statements for fiscal year 1997. Furthermore, Justice and Treasury have refused to implement a GAO recommendation dating back to 1991 to consolidate the management and disposition of properties. Indeed, Justice and Treasury maintain separate contractors to handle seized assets at some of the same locations. GAO found in 1991 and continues to believe that consolidation of asset management and disposition functions could reduce program administration costs and areas of duplication. Moreover, GAO notes that a 1988 law (21 U.S.C. 887) requires that Justice and Treasury maintain a joint plan to coordinate and consolidate post-seizure administration of certain property.
According to information provided to the Committee by your Inspector General (IG) and GAO, there are a number of open audit recommendations addressing other major management problems at Justice as well. An enclosure to this letter describes 57 such unresolved recommendations by the IG, and another enclosure describes 28 additional open GAO recommendations.
I am disappointed to see that almost half (25) of the IG open audit recommendations are addressed to computer security problems. Computer security is a government-wide "high-risk" problem area that poses particularly serious potential risks at Justice in view of its many highly sensitive information systems.
An additional seven open IG recommendations address another problem area of particular concern to me--mismanagement and abuses of the naturalization process by the INS. Still another long-standing problem having open IG recommendations is the failure of INS to deal effectively with imprisoned criminal aliens through the Institutional Hearing Program. The IG’s open recommendations in this area date back to 1995.
Along the same lines, all 28 of GAO’s open audit recommendations relate to INS problem areas. Indeed, GAO recently testified that most of the Department’s major management problems are found at INS; many have persisted for years; and these problems are in need of "urgent attention."
Need for specific performance goals to address major management problems
It is essential that agency heads and other managers commit themselves to tangible steps that will lead to solutions and that agency heads accept accountability for following through on these commitments. One obvious way to do this is to establish specific and measurable goals in your annual GPRA performance plans. Indeed, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing GPRA states:
Performance goals for management problems should be included in the annual plan, particularly for problems whose resolution is mission-critical, or which could potentially impede achievement of program goals . . .
GAO recently evaluated the extent to which Justice’s FY 2000 performance plan contains specific performance goals to address the 16 high-risk and other most serious management problems confronting the Department that GAO and your IG have identified. According to the GAO evaluation, which is detailed in another enclosure, Justice’s plan contains such performance goals for 8 of these 16 problem areas. This is a start, and some of the specific goals appear to address some of the Department’s most serious problems in meaningful ways. For example, Justice has a goal to obtain an unqualified opinion on the fiscal year 2000 financial statements for all of its components.
On the other hand, I am concerned over the absence of specific and measurable goals for the other half of your major problem areas. Without specific and measurable performance goals, it is difficult if not impossible to assess progress in addressing major management problems and to hold agencies accountable. For the reasons stated above, the absence of any goals to resolve the forfeited assets management problem is inexcusable.
Congressional follow-up
With so many tax dollars being wasted, this Committee expects agencies to take every opportunity to use the many tools available to them, such as GPRA plans, to resolve major management problems. Furthermore, the GAO and your own IG exist to work in partnership with you to solve longstanding issues of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I hope that the information provided with this letter will stimulate you to make greater use of these tools and resources. In this regard, I ask that you review the enclosed information and respond to the following questions:
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG recommendations described in the enclosures? If so, what is the basis for your disagreement?
- Where you agree with the recommendations, what specific actions are you taking to implement each one and how long will it take to complete them?
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG designations of management problems facing Justice? If so, which ones and why?
- Where you agree with the problem designations, are you prepared to establish specific and measurable commitments to address each one of them in your next performance plan?
- If so, could you outline preliminarily what approach you plan to take for each problem?
- If you believe that any of these problems do not lend themselves to specific and measurable performance plan goals, please explain why. Please also explain what alternative steps you are taking to solve the problem and to ensure accountability for doing so.
I would appreciate your early attention to this letter. After receiving your response, I will ask Committee staff to arrange a meeting with your representatives to discuss it. My Governmental Affairs Committee staff contact is Robert Shea.
Sincerely,
Fred Thompson
Chairman
FT:rs
Enclosures
