Thompson Letter on GPRA - FEMA
August 17, 1999
The Honorable James Lee Witt
Director
Federal Emergency Management Administration
500 C Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear Director Witt:
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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 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 FEMA 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 FEMA annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 2000. According to GAO, FEMA’s FY 2000 plan "represents little improvement" over its FY 1999 plan.
The FY 2000 plan’s major strengths are that it provides a clear structure linking strategic goals, 5-year operational objectives and annual performance goals; contains results-oriented annual performance goals and generally quantifiable performance indicators; and discusses strategies for accomplishing annual performance goals. Also, the plan reduces the number of objectives from 38 in the FY 1999 plan to 19 and reduces the number of annual performance goals from 60 to 31. GAO said this reduction in objectives and goals helps to focus attention on FEMA’s more critical priorities.
GAO found that the FY 2000 plan had four key weaknesses: (1) it presents only a limited discussion of efforts and plans to coordinate with other agencies whose programs and activities complement FEMA’s; (2) it does not identify the external factors that could affect FEMA’s ability to achieve its performance goals and the actions FEMA can take to mitigate these factors; (3) it does not identify significant limitations potentially affecting the credibility of data used to measure performance; and (4) it provides only a limited description of FEMA’s procedures for verifying and validating performance data.
According to GAO, the FY 2000 plan did not make real progress in addressing prior plan weaknesses. For example, in reviewing the FY 1999 plan, GAO found the plan did not provide a full description of the procedures for verifying and validating performance data. However, FEMA made only limited progress in addressing this concern in the FY 2000 plan.
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 FEMA. According to information provided to the Committee by your Inspector General (IG), there are a number of open audit recommendations addressing major management problems at FEMA. Several of the IG recommendations propose ways to improve disaster cost containment. For example, the IG recommended that FEMA clarify the rules governing waivers of insurance requirements granted by State Insurance Commissioners. The enclosure describes many such unresolved recommendations by the IG.
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. OMB guidance in Circular A-11 for agencies to prepare their performance plans states that
performance goals for management problems should be included particularly for problems whose resolution is mission-critical or which could potentially impede achievement of program goals...
GAO recently evaluated the extent to which FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 GPRA performance plan contains specific and measurable performance goals to address the most serious management problems confronting FEMA. According to the GAO evaluation, which is detailed in the enclosures, FEMA’s plan has no specific goals for 3 of the 12 problem areas: (1) information security issues; (2) establishing clear, documented criteria for presidentially-declared disasters; and (3) developing or modifying evaluation systems to capture necessary performance data . Moreover, several parts of the remaining areas in the plan do not contain specific and measurable performance goals.
I am concerned over the absence of such goals for some of these 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.
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 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?
- Do you disagree with any of the IG designations of management problems facing FEMA? 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 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.
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
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE GOALS IN FEMA’s FY 2000 PERFORMANCE PLAN
ADDRESSING
GAO- AND IG-DESIGNATED MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
| Major Management Challenge | Specific Performance Goal(s) |
| Year 2000 problem.
(A January 1999 FEMA Inspector General report also identified this area as a concern. However, as of March 31, 1999, FEMA reported that all of its mission-critical systems are compliant with Year 2000 requirements.) |
The plan includes a performance indicator that makes reference to correcting Year 2000 software and hardware problems within the agency’s computer networks. |
|
FEMA needs to establish that information security issues have been addressed within the agency. |
None. |
|
Federal disaster assistance costs have grown over the past decade. FEMA needs to find ways to reduce these costs. |
All three of FEMA’s strategic goals hae performance goals that address disaster assistance costs. For example, FEMA’s third strategic goal includes a performance goal directed at improving the efficiency of operations and service, while strategic goal 1 includes a number of performance goals that are directed at mitigating future damages, thus reducing costs. |
|
Clear, documented criteria for presidentially declared disasters are lacking. (In January 1999, FEMA issued a proposed rule concerning factors considered when evaluating requests for major disaster declarations.) |
None. |
|
The emergency management culture needs to change from one that reactively responds to disasters to one that proactively assists communities in avoiding future damages and loss of life by emphasizing mitigation efforts. |
Strategic goal 1 includes a number of performance goals that are directed at building up FEMA’s, other agencies’, states’, and communities’ mitigation efforts. For example, one goal calls for entering into formal agreements with at least 10 other federal agencies on how their pgorams, resources, and capabilities can be leveraged to support mitigation goals. Other goals include supporting states and communities in their mitigation activities and increasing by at least 50 the number of disaster-resistant communities. |
|
FEMA needs to ensure the financial soundness of the national Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which continues to carry debt. |
FEMA has established a 5-year operational objective to complete revisions to the NFIP to enhance its financial soundness and equity. Other objectives include an initiative targeted at reducing repetitive flood losses in floodplains. |
|
FEMA’s ability to measure state grant performance and capability is limited. This ability is important because it could influence grant funding decisions. |
FEMA’s plan includes several performance goals that will attempt to build the states’ capability. One goal identifies using national baseline data from the capability assessment for readiness report to determine the level of emergency capability of states and localities and their progress in addressing weaknesses. Another goal calls for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation planning to better target technical assistance and develop incentives to reward successful state and local risk management practices and encourage higher levels of performance. |
|
FEMA reports that the majority of the agency’s flood plain maps depicting the 100- and 500-year flood plains are no longer accurate. These maps are important because they influence flood insurance needs and whether flood mitigation measures are used in communities. |
The plan contains annual performance goals to implement standards and procedures to modernize the flood plain mapping program and to develop tools to help states achieve hazard-mitigation standards and performance measures such as adopting flood mitigation measures. |
|
FEMA needs to improve financial management, accounting, controls, and reporting systems to fully support management decision-making |
FEMA’s plan attempts to achieve the objectives of the agency’s 5-year financial management plan through one of its annual performance goals. |
|
FEMA needs to implement and maintain information management systems that improve FEMA’s ability to manage its programs and operations. |
The plan contains several annual performance goals, including goals to direct the remaining National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) development activities and analyze and disseminate data and information to promote professional decision-making by fire and emergency managers and first responders. Another goal is to operate a logistics program that provides timely and cost-effective resources to support the all-hazards mission of FEMA. |
|
FEMA needs to ensure that grantees use grant funds effectively, efficiently, and economically. |
FEMA’s plan contains an annual performance goal to achieve the objectives set out in a 5-year plan that resulted from a grants management improvement study conducted by FEMA’s chief financial officer in fiscal year 1997. Performance measurement indicators include implementing recommendations of the grants management improvement initiative within agreed-upon time frames. The plan also contains performance goals to enhance community recovery over fiscal year 1998 baselines and to improve by 2 percent the efficiency with which FEMA delivers selected services. |
|
FEMA needs to develop or modify evaluation systems to capture necessary performance data. |
None. |
