This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-573T 
entitled 'U.S. Government Accountability: Human Capital Initiatives and 
Additional Legislative Authorities' which was released on March 17, 
2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the 
District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT: 

Thursday, March 13, 2008: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Human Capital Initiatives and Additional Legislative Authorities: 

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United 
States: 

GAO-08-573T: 

Chairman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
several important topics: 

* provisions of H.R. 3268, the GAO Act, that would bolster our ability 
to attract and retain a highly skilled and diverse workforce needed to 
serve the Congress and provide for operational improvements and 
administrative efficiencies; 

* steps we are taking to establish and maintain a constructive working 
relationship with the GAO Employees Organization, International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE); and: 

* my commitment to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all segments 
of our diverse workforce, as reinforced by our commissioning of a study 
of various performance assessment issues related to African-American 
Analysts at GAO.[Footnote 1] 

Importance of GAO Act Provisions: 

The GAO Act contains several distinct and critical components. A number 
of provisions are designed to benefit our employees and to provide a 
means to continue to attract, retain, and reward a top-flight 
workforce, while other provisions are aimed at helping us improve our 
operations and increase administrative efficiencies. We ask for your 
support of these measures and have outlined each of them below. 

Human Capital and Compensation Provisions: 

* Permit the GS-15 statutory cap to rise to the Executive Level III: 

Our pay surveys indicated that certain higher-level economists, 
attorneys, management positions, and specialists would warrant salaries 
above GS-15, step 10. This authority would enable GAO to compensate 
these skilled professionals and managers up to Executive Level III when 
justified, thus aiding GAO in its recruitment and retention efforts. 
This authority is similar to flexibilities exercised by other agencies. 
For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other 
agencies concerned with financial matters are not subject to the GS-15 
cap. The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security likewise have the 
ability to pay their staff more than this limit. If this authority is 
granted, GAO would use its increased pay flexibility only when 
justified by pay surveys or other compensation data. 

* Allow GAO to incur recruiting expenses for meals and related 
expenses: 

GAO's work requires skilled professionals for whom GAO must compete 
with leading private sector and public organizations. GAO would like 
the ability to incur recruiting expenditures for meals and related 
expenses. This small, but important, step would enhance GAO's effort to 
attract top talent. At this time, both the Department of Defense for 
recruiting military members (10 U.S.C 520c) and the Coast Guard (14 
U.S.C. 468) have similar provisions. We would use this authority 
frugally. 

* Achieve equal footing regarding voluntary separation incentive 
payments (VSIP): 

The law authorizing GAO to provide VSIPs requires GAO to make a 
substantial payment to the retirement fund--no less than 45 percent of 
an employee's final basic pay--which renders the flexibility virtually 
unusable. This contrasts with the flexibility given to the executive 
branch for VSIPs. While the Department of Defense has agency-specific 
VSIP authority, and executive branch agencies--with Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) approval--have general VSIP authority, in both 
instances the statutory authority for these programs does not require 
any payments to the retirement fund for the granting of a VSIP. 
Removing this requirement would put GAO on an equal footing with other 
agencies, make VSIPs more practical, and provide an important 
flexibility to help GAO reshape its workforce should such authority 
become necessary. 

* Include performance-based bonuses in calculating non-Senior Executive 
Service and non-Senior Level employees' "high-three" average salary for 
retirement purposes: 

GAO's performance-based compensation system provides a nonpermanent 
bonus component for some of our employees. As our employees have 
pointed out, under current law, they do not get credit for these 
bonuses when OPM calculates their "high-three" average salary for 
retirement purposes. The GAO Act would remedy the situation by 
directing that bonuses be included in the "high-three" calculation. 
This provision does not apply to Senior Executive Service (SES) and 
Senior Level employees. 

Related Compensation Proposals: 

Before turning to provisions in the GAO Act related to operational 
improvements and administrative efficiencies, let me address two 
important proposals related to employee compensation that--while not 
included in H.R. 3268--have been under discussion as well. 

* Adopting a "floor guarantee" for future annual pay adjustments: 

We support the adoption of a "floor guarantee" provision for future 
annual pay adjustments. We first raised a similar concept with Members 
of the Subcommittee last May.[Footnote 2] Just last month, our 
negotiating team introduced the idea to the GAO Employees Organization, 
IFPTE, which agreed to adopt a floor guarantee as part of the agreement 
governing 2008 pay adjustments. We were pleased to reach a prompt 
agreement and believe the floor guarantee reasonably balances our 
commitment to performance-based pay with an appropriate degree of 
predictability and equity for all GAO employees. 

A statutorily based floor guarantee would provide GAO employees with 
greater certainty about future salary increases and ensure at least pay 
parity with the executive branch. We support the floor guarantee 
approach because we believe it will preserve the incentives and rewards 
of GAO's performance-based compensation system, while ensuring-- 
subject to the conditions explained below--that GAO employees receive 
an annual increase in their permanent pay that is at least equal to GS 
across-the-board increase for each locality area. 

The floor guarantee would ensure that all employees performing at the 
"meets expectations" level or better would receive an annual adjustment 
to their basic rate that is at least equal to the total annual increase 
under the General Schedule (GS) system for the employees' geographic 
area.[Footnote 3] The only exceptions would be employees (1) receiving 
ratings below the "meets expectations" level, (2) participating in 
development programs under which they receive performance reviews and 
permanent merit pay increases more than once a year, (3) occupying 
positions covered by the Federal Wage System, or (4) occupying SES or 
Senior Level positions. 

The floor guarantee would be implemented in the following manner. We 
would continue to apply the system we implemented in 2006, as 
authorized by GAO's 2004 legislation. Thus, we first would determine 
for each employee the amount of GAO's annual adjustment and performance-
based compensation, which includes both permanent merit pay adjustments 
and any nonpermanent bonuses. Then, if the sum of the employee's annual 
adjustment and permanent merit pay is less than the increase the 
employee would have received under the annual adjustment to the GS in 
the employee's geographic area, we would increase the employee's 
permanent pay to equal the increase that would have been received under 
the annual adjustment to the GS system that year. If an employee 
receives an additional adjustment as a result of the floor guarantee, 
the additional amount would be deducted from any bonus an employee 
would have received. 

* Addressing prior pay decisions: 

We understand that consideration has been given to including a 
legislative provision that would compensate GAO employees who did not 
receive the full base pay increases of 2.6 percent in 2006 and 2.4 
percent in 2007. At the invitation of subcommittee staff, we have 
engaged in fruitful discussions about a reasonable and practical 
approach should the Congress decide to accomplish this objective 
legislatively. We appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to consider 
providing GAO with the necessary legal and funding authorities to 
address this issue. Resolution of this matter would be helpful and 
would permit us to move forward on other important human capital 
initiatives. 

Operational Improvements and Administrative Efficiencies: 

The GAO Act also contains a number of provisions to promote operational 
improvements and efficiencies. These include establishing a statutory 
Inspector General at GAO, providing the Congress with more information 
on the level of executive branch cooperation received by GAO in the 
conduct of our work, authorizing reimbursement for certain financial 
audits, allowing GAO more flexibility in administering oaths, receiving 
gifts that do not impair our independence, and clarifying financial 
disclosure requirements. 

* Establish a statutory inspector general: 

The GAO Act would replace our current inspector general (IG) position 
with a statutory position. GAO supports the IG concept and 
administratively has created an IG who performs many of the roles of 
the statutory IGs. GAO's statutory IG would be similar to the statutory 
IGs in the other legislative branch agencies. Although appointed by the 
heads of their respective agencies (or by the Capitol Police Board, in 
the case of the Capitol Police IG), these statutory IGs are provided 
with independence and autonomy from the heads of their agencies. They 
conduct and supervise audits and investigations, and they endeavor to 
prevent and detect fraud and abuse in their agencies' programs and 
operations. This is the model followed in H.R. 3268 for GAO's statutory 
IG. 

* Report on executive branch cooperation: 

Although the Comptroller General has certain statutory mechanisms 
available to aid in conducting GAO audits and investigations, voluntary 
cooperation of agency officers and employees of audited agencies is 
essential to the efficiency of GAO's work. The GAO Act includes two new 
reporting requirements to provide more transparency related to the 
level of cooperation GAO is receiving from audited agencies. The first 
would require an annual report card on the overall cooperation of 
federal agencies in all aspects of GAO's work, including any 
unreasonable delays in making personnel available for interviews, 
providing written answers to questions, granting access to records, 
providing timely comments on draft reports, and responding 
appropriately to report recommendations. The second reporting 
requirement would require that the Comptroller General inform the 
Congress as soon as practicable regarding specific impediments, such as 
when an agency or other entity does not make personnel available for 
interviews or does not provide written answers to questions. 

* Obtain reimbursement of certain financial audit costs: 

The GAO Act also includes a provision to enable GAO to be reimbursed 
for the financial audits it performs that, in the first instance, are 
the specific responsibility of an executive branch agency. Since 1997, 
the Comptroller General has elected to exercise his statutory 
discretion to audit the financial statements of the Internal Revenue 
Service and the Schedule of Federal Debt, issued by the Bureau of the 
Public Debt, in lieu of the Treasury IG or an independent Certified 
Public Accountant hired by the IG. As a result, the Department of the 
Treasury has received these audit services at no cost and without 
reimbursing GAO. This legislation would require, beginning in fiscal 
year 2009, any executive branch agency covered by the Chief Financial 
Officers Act (CFO Act) and Accountability for Tax Dollars Act for which 
GAO elects to audit financial statements or related schedules to 
reimburse the Comptroller General for the cost of performing such 
audits. Such payment would be consistent with the principle that 
agencies should pay for financial statement audit services, as they 
otherwise must when the audit is conducted by their IGs or independent 
contracted auditors. This principle already has been applied to 
reimbursements made to GAO by the Securities and Exchange Commission 
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as well as other 
government corporations for financial statement audits conducted by GAO 
under separate legal authorities. 

* Provide GAO with greater flexibilities in administering oaths: 

Currently, the Comptroller General is authorized to administer oaths to 
witnesses when auditing and settling accounts. Although in 1921, when 
the Congress established GAO, auditing and settling accounts 
represented the bulk of our work, that is not the case today. The 
Comptroller General has been called upon to perform many other audit, 
investigative, and adjudicative roles for the Congress. These roles 
periodically raise situations involving, for example, potential 
criminal or ethical violations, or conflicting testimony or assertions 
of material and sensitive subjects. In such situations, the ability to 
administer oaths would be a useful and important tool for the 
Comptroller General to accomplish his work for the Congress. The new 
authority is not expected to be widely used or to have broad impact. 

* Give GAO the same gift authority as other agencies: 

Under the GAO Act, the Comptroller General would receive the same 
authority presently available to many agency heads to aid them in 
accomplishing their mission. Specifically, the Comptroller General 
would be authorized to accept and dispose of gifts given for the 
purpose of aiding and facilitating the work of the office. To implement 
this authority, we would promulgate regulations to ensure that no 
conflict or appearance of a conflict would arise when accepting any 
gifts. 

* Clarify financial disclosure requirements: 

GAO is seeking a revision to the law regarding the financial disclosure 
requirements of its employees to address an unintended result of GAO's 
revised pay system that vastly increased the number of employees who 
must file a public financial disclosure report. Under GAO's new pay 
system, GAO employees no longer receive severable locality pay 
adjustments, as compensation differences in local markets are already 
taken into account in setting the pay ranges for GAO's various 
locations. The inability to exclude amounts formerly attributable to 
locality pay has roughly doubled the number of GAO employees who must 
file a public disclosure report. This amendment would remedy this 
situation by deducting these amounts from employees' annual rate of pay 
for purposes of determining who must file a public financial disclosure 
report. This would substantially reduce administrative burden while 
assuring that GAO's senior employees remain required to file a public 
financial disclosure report. The employees who no longer would be 
required to file a public report would still be required to file a 
confidential financial disclosure report for review within GAO under 
GAO's ethics rules. 

Remaining Provisions: 

In the draft bill that we transmitted to the committee last July, there 
were a number of provisions related to the Office of the Comptroller 
General and the positions of Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller 
General. These provisions are also contained in the GAO Act, as 
introduced by Chairman Waxman. While we recognize the prerogative of 
the Congress to address these issues, we believe they should now be 
placed in abeyance pending confirmation of a new Comptroller General. 

Establishing and Maintaining Constructive Union Relationships: 

As you know, on September 19, 2007, our Band I and Band II Analysts, 
Auditors, Specialists, and Investigators voted to be represented by the 
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers 
(IFPTE) for the purpose of bargaining with GAO management on various 
terms and conditions of employment. GAO management is committed to 
working constructively with employee union representatives to forge a 
positive labor-management relationship. 

Since September, GAO management has taken a variety of steps to ensure 
it is following applicable labor relations laws and has the resources 
in place to work effectively and productively in this new union 
environment. Our efforts have involved: 

* postponing work on several initiatives regarding our current 
performance and pay programs; 

* delivering specialized labor-management relations training to our 
Band III, Band III-equivalent, SES, and Senior Level staff; 

* establishing a new Workforce Relations Center within our Human 
Capital Office that is responsible for providing employee relations and 
labor relations advice and services to GAO management and leadership; 

* hiring a Workforce Relations Center director, who also serves as our 
chief negotiator in collective bargaining deliberations. 

* In addition, we routinely notify union representatives of meetings 
that may qualify as formal discussions, so that a representative of the 
GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE, can attend the meeting. We also 
regularly provide the GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE, with 
information about projects involving changes to terms and conditions of 
employment over which the union has the right to bargain. 

As mentioned earlier, we were pleased that GAO and the GAO Employees 
Organization, IFPTE, reached a prompt agreement on 2008 pay 
adjustments. The agreement was overwhelmingly ratified by bargaining 
unit members on February 14, 2008, and we have applied the agreed-upon 
approach to the 2008 adjustments to all GAO staff, with the exception 
of the SES and Senior-Level staff, regardless of whether they are 
represented by the union. The agreement embodies the floor guarantee 
described earlier in this statement. 

Pursuing Our Commitment to Diversity and Fair Treatment for All Staff: 

Recruiting, rewarding, and retaining a high-performing diverse 
workforce is critical if GAO is to successfully carry out its mission 
in support of the Congress. As you know, an effective GAO requires a 
first-rate workforce that is representative of our society and steeped 
in a wide variety of disciplines that can gather the facts and develop 
innovative solutions to both old and new problems challenging the 
federal government. 

Meeting these challenges requires top leadership commitment, sustained 
effort, and a focus on continuous improvement. For example, we enhanced 
our professional development programs for entry level staff; initiated 
a formal agencywide mentoring program; and continue our strong support 
for flexible work schedules and teleworking to help GAO employees 
balance the demands of work and home. GAO's two most recent testimonies 
before this subcommittee outlined many other support measures and 
safeguards in place to help ensure fair and equitable treatment of all 
employees.[Footnote 4] 

As circumstances warrant, we also are committed to studying areas in 
depth where we have reason to believe that actions and improvements are 
needed. One such example is GAO's decision in August 2007 to contract 
with the Ivy Planning Group (Ivy) for an independent assessment of 
differences in the averages of African-American Analysts' performance 
compared with white Analysts and to provide the Ivy team with complete 
access to relevant data and staff. Shortly after the contract award, we 
provided Ivy with all requested data on appraisals; employee 
demographics; employee education and skills; and information on GAO's 
performance management, pay, development, and recruitment programs. 
Further, in response to additional Ivy requests after they conducted 
employee and management interviews and focus groups, we provided 
information related to hires and separations, employee feedback scores, 
and exit survey results. 

We tasked Ivy with reviewing African-American and white Analysts' 
performance appraisal data from 2002 through 2006--which was the data 
available at the time Ivy's study began. In addition, we charged Ivy 
with assessing and comparing the skills, assignments, engagement roles, 
training, educational attainment, and recruiting practices at GAO for 
African-American and white Analysts, as well as with identifying best 
practices internally and externally that might enhance GAO's 
performance management systems and assist us in reducing any gaps. Ivy 
has been asked to recommend further steps that GAO can take to ensure 
fair, consistent, and nondiscriminatory application of GAO's 
performance management system. 

Ivy has not yet finished its analysis and is not scheduled to issue a 
final report until April 2008. We are looking forward to receiving the 
final report and its recommendations. We will keep this subcommittee 
and other interested parties informed as we address the recommendations 
contained in this final report. 

As we implement necessary improvements to address this issue, as well 
as others, we are fortunate to have a solid foundation upon which to 
build. For example, while we missed a few of the targets we 
established, our employee feedback survey scores, as shown in appendix 
I, for our "people" measures on staff development, staff utilization, 
leadership, and organizational climate have remained relatively stable 
even in a period of significant change. Further, we are proud that GAO 
was named second among large agencies across the federal government in 
the 2007 ranking of best places to work, which was issued by the 
Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study of 
Public Policy Implementation at American University. In addition, when 
results were analyzed by demographic groups, GAO ranked second among 
female, African-American, and Hispanic employees. 

This overall positive work environment is one of many reasons GAO's 
dedicated and talented workforce is able to effectively serve the 
Congress and produce solid results for the American people.[Footnote 5] 
Last fiscal year, our work contributed to hundreds of improvements in 
government operations and benefits, as well as $45.9 billion in 
financial benefits or a $94 return for every dollar the Congress 
invested in us. We also contributed to over 270 congressional hearings 
and provided hundreds of valuable products to assist the Congress on 
topics as wide ranging as food safety, border patrol, and tax 
compliance. 

In closing, I want to reiterate our appreciation for the subcommittee's 
consideration of these legislative proposals to strengthen GAO. We look 
forward to continuing our constructive dialogue with the subcommittee 
on these and other issues in the future. Thank you for the opportunity 
to share our views. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any 
questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 
this time. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Agencywide Summary of Annual Measures and Targets: 

Performance measure: Results: Financial benefits: (dollars in 
billions); 
2003: actual: $35.4; 
2004: actual: $44.0; 
2005: actual: $39.6; 
2006: actual: $51.0; 
2007: target: $40.0; 
2007: actual: $45.9; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: $40.0[A]. 

Performance measure: Results: Nonfinancial benefits; 
2003: actual: 1,043; 
2004: actual: 1,197; 
2005: actual: 1,409; 
2006: actual: 1,342; 
2007: target: 1,100; 
2007: actual: 1,354; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 1,150. 

Performance measure: Results: Past recommendations implemented; 
2003: actual: 82%; 
2004: actual: 83%; 
2005: actual: 85%; 
2006: actual: 82%; 
2007: target: 80%; 
2007: actual: 82%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 80%. 

Performance measure: Results: New products with recommendations; 
2003: actual: 55%; 
2004: actual: 63%; 
2005: actual: 63%; 
2006: actual: 65%; 
2007: target: 60%; 
2007: actual: 66%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 60%. 

Performance measure: Client: Testimonies; 
2003: actual: 189; 
2004: actual: 217; 
2005: actual: 179; 
2006: actual: 240; 
2007: target: 185; 
2007: actual: 276; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 220. 

Performance measure: Client: Timeliness[B]; 
2003: actual: N/A[C]; 
2004: actual: 89%; 
2005: actual: 90%; 
2006: actual: 92%; 
2007: target: 95%; 
2007: actual: 94%; 
Met/: not met: Not met; 
2008: target: 95%. 

Performance measure: People: New hire rate; 
2003: actual: 98%; 
2004: actual: 98%; 
2005: actual: 94%; 
2006: actual: 94%; 
2007: target: 95%; 
2007: actual: 96%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 95%. 

Performance measure: People: Acceptance rate; 
2003: actual: 72%; 
2004: actual: 72%; 
2005: actual: 71%; 
2006: actual: 70%; 
2007: target: 72%; 
2007: actual: 72%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 72%. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: With retirements; 
2003: actual: 92%; 
2004: actual: 90%; 
2005: actual: 90%; 
2006: actual: 90%; 
2007: target: 90%; 
2007: actual: 90%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 90%. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: Without retirements; 
2003: actual: 96%; 
2004: actual: 95%; 
2005: actual: 94%; 
2006: actual: 94%; 
2007: target: 94%; 
2007: actual: 94%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 94%. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: Staff development; 
2003: actual: 67%; 
2004: actual: 70%; 
2005: actual: 72%; 
2006: actual: 76%; 
2007: target: 75%; 
2007: actual: 76%; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 76%. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: Staff utilization[D]; 
2003: actual: 71%; 
2004: actual: 72%; 
2005: actual: 75%; 
2006: actual: 75%; 
2007: target: 78%; 
2007: actual: 73%; 
Met/: not met: Not met; 
2008: target: 75%[E]. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: Leadership; 
2003: actual: 78%; 
2004: actual: 79%; 
2005: actual: 80%; 
2006: actual: 79%; 
2007: target: 80%; 
2007: actual: 79%; 
Met/: not met: Not met; 
2008: target: 80%. 

Performance measure: Retention rate: Organizational climate; 
2003: actual: 71%; 
2004: actual: 74%; 
2005: actual: 76%; 
2006: actual: 73%; 
2007: target: 76%; 
2007: actual: 74%; 
Met/: not met: Not met; 
2008: target: 75%[F]. 

Performance measure: Internal operations: Help get job done; 
2003: actual: 3.98; 
2004: actual: 4.01; 
2005: actual: 4.10; 
2006: actual: 4.10; 
2007: target: 4.00; 
2007: actual: 4.05; 
Met/: not met: Met; 
2008: target: 4.00. 

Performance measure: Internal operations: Quality of work life; 
2003: actual: 3.86; 
2004: actual: 3.96; 
2005: actual: 3.98; 
2006: actual: 4.00; 
2007: target: 4.00; 
2007: actual: 3.98; 
Met/: not met: Not met; 
2008: target: 4.00. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Information explaining all of the measures included in this 
table appears in GAO Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 
2007, GAO-08-1SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2007)--see the Data 
Quality and Program Evaluations section in Part II. 

[A] Our fiscal year 2008 target for financial benefits differs from the 
target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 performance 
budget in January 2007. Specifically, we decreased our financial 
benefits target by $1.5 billion based on (1) our assessment of our past 
recommendations that were likely to be implemented in fiscal 2008 by 
federal agencies and the Congress and (2) the impact that our 
constrained budget might have had on the work that leads to financial 
benefits. 

[B] Since fiscal year 2004, we have collected data from our client 
feedback survey on the quality and timeliness of our products, and in 
fiscal year 2006, we began to use the independent feedback from this 
survey as a basis for determining our timeliness. 

[C] N/A indicates that the data are not applicable because we did not 
collect it from our client feedback survey this period. 

[D] Our employee feedback survey asks staff how often the following 
occurred in the last 12 months: (1)my job made good use of my skills, 
(2) GAO provided me with opportunities to do challenging work, and (3) 
in general, I was utilized effectively. 

[E] Our fiscal year 2008 target for staff utilization differs from the 
target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 performance 
budget in January 2007. We lowered the staff utilization target by 3 
percentage points because we determined that, based on our past 
performance, the target was unrealistic, and we reset it at a level 
that is still challenging but more likely to be achieved. 

[F] Our fiscal year 2008 target for organizational climate differs from 
the target we reported for this measure in our fiscal year 2008 
performance budget in January 2007. We decreased the organizational 
climate target by 1 percentage point because we determined that based 
on our past performance, the target was unrealistic, and we reset it at 
a level that is still challenging but more likely to be achieved. 

[End of table] 

Footnotes:  

[1] The study comprises Analysts; Auditors; and Specialists, such as 
Economists and Information Technology Specialists, who perform GAO's 
audit and investigatory work. 

[2] GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office: Status of GAO's Human 
Capital Transformation Efforts, Statement of David M. Walker, 
Comptroller General of the United States, GAO-07-872T (Washington, 
D.C.: May 22, 2007). 

[3] This would be in accordance with U.S. Code, Title 5, Part III, 
Subpart D, Chapter 53, Subchapter 1. 

[4] GAO-07-872T; and GAO, Human Capital: Building Diversity in GAO's 
Senior Executive Service, Statement of Ronald A. Stroman, Managing 
Director, Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness, GAO-08-275T 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2007). 

[5] GAO, Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2007, GAO-
08-1SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2007). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: