Departmental Documents Address Aspects of Management Integration, but DHS Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive Strategy

The 9/11 Commission Act requires DHS to develop a strategy for  management integration as part of the department’s integration and  transformation to create a more efficient and orderly consolidation of  functions and personnel in the department. According to DHS’s USM, the  department has not yet developed a comprehensive management  integration strategy because, in part, the Management Directorate has  focused on building the management operations capacity within the  functional areas, such as financial management and information  technology. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy,  DHS’s USM, Chief of Staff, and department and component management  chiefs stated that various departmental documents collectively contribute  to the department’s strategy for implementing and achieving management  integration. Management Directorate Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 through  2014. However, among the documents cited by  DHS officials as being part of the department’s management integration  strategy, DHS has not yet looked across the management initiatives within  management functional areas to identify the critical links that must occur  among these initiatives to integrate the department’s management  functions both within and across functional areas. In addition to these functional area and departmentwide documents, DHS  officials identified three other documents that are related to management  integration: (1) the DHS Strategic Plan; (2) the Quadrennial Homeland  Security Review (QHSR); and (3) the Business Operations Manual. A comprehensive strategy for management integration  that clearly sets implementation goals and time lines could help the  department establish measures for assessing its management integration. DHS’s Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to Communicate and Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, and Systems

Through various management councils, the Management Directorate  shares information related to the implementation of management  initiatives, solicits feedback from the components, and provides a forum  for coordination between component management offices. In reviewing performance management  linkages at the USM’s level, we found that the Deputy Secretary provided  input into the USM’s performance plan in October 2007, and conducted a  performance evaluation in 2008 based on this agreement. Five department chiefs report directly  to the USM, and the CFO has a dual reporting relationship to the Secretary  and the USM. Without  ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs’  performance plans and evaluations as required, the Management  Directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing  management integration. Moreover, while  DHS has been implementing management initiatives and processes across  the department, in the absence of a comprehensive management  integration strategy, it is unclear how these efforts are being prioritized  and sequenced, and trade-offs between them are being recognized. Although the department has developed certain  management measures, these measures do not allow the department to  assess the extent to which it is making progress in implementing and  achieving management integration both within and across functional  areas. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen its management integration efforts, we recommend that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for  Management, working with others, to take the following four actions:    Once a comprehensive management integration strategy is developed,  consistent with statute and as we previously recommended, establish  performance measures to assess progress made in achieving  departmentwide management integration;    Ensure that department management chiefs provide written objectives for  component management chiefs’ performance plans at the beginning of  each performance cycle, and that the objectives are representative of  determined priorities and milestones for the management functions during  that period;    Ensure that department management chiefs provide input into component  management chiefs’ annual performance evaluations; and    Ensure that component management chiefs’ individual performance plans  are reflective of and include linkages to the goals and objectives for the  Management Directorate and relevant department management function.
Why GAO Did This Study

Significant management challenges exist for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as it continues to integrate its varied management processes, policies, and systems in areas such as financial management and information technology. These activities are primarily led by the Under Secretary for Management (USM), department management chiefs, and management chiefs in DHS's seven components. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine: (1) the extent to which DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration that includes the characteristics recommended in GAO's 2005 report; (2) how DHS is implementing management integration; and (3) the extent to which the USM is holding the department and component management chiefs accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships. GAO reviewed DHS plans and interviewed management officials in DHS's headquarters and in all components.

What GAO Found

DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration as required by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and with the characteristics GAO recommended in a 2005 report. Although DHS stated in response to the 2005 report that it was developing an integration strategy, it has not yet done so, in part because it has focused on building operations capacity within functional management areas. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy, DHS officials stated that documents such as management directives and strategic plans address aspects of a management integration strategy and can help the department to manage its integration efforts. However, they do not generally include all of the strategy characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical links that must occur among management initiatives and time lines for monitoring the progress of these initiatives. In addition, DHS has increased the number of performance measures for the Management Directorate, but has not yet established measures for assessing management integration across the department, although DHS officials stated that the department intends to do so. Without these measures DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and achieving management integration. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS's Management Directorate has implemented management integration through certain initiatives and mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management policies, processes, and systems. The directorate uses councils to communicate information related to the implementation of management initiatives, among other things. The directorate has also established governance boards and processes to manage specific activities. Further, the directorate is in the process of consolidating certain management systems. However, without a documented management integration strategy, it is difficult for DHS, Congress, and other key stakeholders to understand and monitor the critical linkages and prioritization among these various efforts. The USM and department and component management chiefs are held accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships at three levels--between the Secretary and the USM, the USM and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs--in which, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans and evaluations. The Deputy Secretary--through delegation from the Secretary--and the USM have provided input into the USM's and department chiefs' plans and evaluations, respectively. Although department chiefs are required by management directives to provide component chiefs with written objectives at the start of the annual performance cycle, in fiscal year 2009 only two out of six department chiefs provided such input to component chiefs. Without ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs' performance plans and evaluations as required, the directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing management integration.