Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Enhance Performance Information Transparency and Monitoring
Highlights
What GAO Found
The U.S. Coast Guard's (Coast Guard) performance goals generally align with its 11 statutory missions. However, GAO found that the goals representing 5 of the 11 missions do not fully address all related mission activities. For example, despite the Coast Guard's mission to interdict all illegal drugs, the agency's two performance goals related to that mission are for cocaine interdiction only, excluding many other substances. Developing new goals to address missions, or describing how existing goals sufficiently assess mission performance, could better convey the Coast Guard's progress in achieving its missions to decision makers and the public. The Coast Guard also does not report all of its performance goals in publicly available documents, limiting congressional and public awareness of the Coast Guard's ability to meet its missions.
Figure: Elements of the Coast Guard's Performance Assessment Process
The Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have processes intended to ensure the reliability of performance data for the seven selected goals that GAO reviewed. However, the Coast Guard does not consistently document its data limitations for internal and external audiences. For example, the Coast Guard did not document limitations with its performance goal regarding the number of detected incursions of foreign fishing vessels violating U.S. waters. While the Coast Guard reported taking steps to address data limitations with two of the seven selected performance goals that GAO reviewed, the extent of such limitations are not clearly documented. Assessing the extent to which performance data limitations are documented could provide greater transparency regarding the reliability of these data.
Additionally, for the same selected seven goals, GAO found that the Coast Guard documented an explanation for why it did or did not meet each performance goal reported to DHS, as well as corrective actions for each unmet goal. However, the Coast Guard's corrective actions were not measurable and did not include time frames for implementation. For example, the Coast Guard did not report measureable actions or time frames for evaluating whether additional resources were needed to address its cocaine interdiction goal. The Coast Guard also did not document its efforts to monitor whether the corrective actions it developed for unmet performance goals were implemented or evaluate whether they had the intended effect. Documenting these efforts could enable the Coast Guard to determine whether these actions have been implemented, if they have mitigated any performance gaps, and continue to plan and prioritize its operations to target performance gaps, which is consistent with federal standards for internal control.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Coast Guard, within DHS, is responsible for, among other things, protecting the marine environment and guarding the nation's vast coastline and ports. Using performance goals—comprised of measures, timeframes, and targets—the Coast Guard assesses and communicates its performance.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review the Coast Guard's performance goals. This report examines: (1) the extent the Coast Guard developed and reported goals that align with each of its missions and address core activities, (2) the extent the Coast Guard and DHS have processes to ensure that data for selected goals are reliable, and (3) the explanations and corrective actions the Coast Guard reported for selected met and unmet goals during fiscal years 2011 through 2015. GAO reviewed applicable laws, policies, and guidance. GAO reviewed the reliability and results of 7 of the Coast Guard's 38 performance goals to include a variety of performance results, data sources, and missions, and interviewed Coast Guard and DHS officials.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that the Coast Guard develop new performance goals or describe how existing goals are sufficient, publicly report its goals, assess the extent limitations in performance data are documented, document measurable corrective actions and implementation time frames, as well as document efforts to monitor implementation of corrective actions. DHS concurred with all five recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| United States Coast Guard | The Commandant of the Coast Guard should either develop new performance goals to address mission activity gaps, or explain in the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. (Recommendation 1) |
In October 2017, we reported on Coast Guard's performance goals and measures. We found that the Coast Guard's performance goals generally aligned with its statutory missions. However, goals representing 5 of its 11 missions did not fully address all of the respective mission activities, without an explanation of the Coast Guard's rationale for why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. For example, two of the Coast Guard's performance goals related to its drug interdiction mission captured performance data related to cocaine interdiction, but not performance data for any other illegal drugs . We recommended that the Commandant of the Coast Guard should either develop new performance goals to address mission activity gaps, or explain in the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would add new measures in future APRs and explain what is measured and what is not, as appropriate. In January 2023, the Coast Guard released its Fiscal Year 2022 APR . Related to its drug interdiction mission, the Fiscal Year 2022 APR explains that the Coast Guard tracks multiple illicit drugs in the maritime environment, however, cocaine remains the predominate illicit drug moved via non-commercial maritime conveyances. The APR further states that data collected on other illicit drug interdictions compares trends in removal rates from year to year without annual targets. Describing in its APR how existing data sufficiently assesses the performance of each mission provides more meaningful information on progress in achieving the Coast Guard's missions to executive branch decision makers, Congress, and the public.
|
| United States Coast Guard | The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should make the Coast Guard's future Annual Performance Reports publicly available on the Coast Guard's website. (Recommendation 2) |
In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would make its future Annual Performance Report (APR) available on its public website. In February 2018, the Coast Guard reported that the fiscal year 2017 APR was completed and signed. Subsequently, in June 2018, the Coast Guard made its fiscal year 2017 APR publicly available on its website. The APR can be found by performing a search on Coast Guard's website. Officials we spoke with said that Coast Guard published the fiscal year 2017 APR in the same website location where Coast Guard had published its APRs prior to 2010. These actions help increase the transparency of Coast Guard's planned performance and actual results, and make such information more available and accessible.
|
| United States Coast Guard | The Commandant of the Coast Guard, should coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security, and assess the extent to which documentation on performance data reliability, including Performance Measure Definition Forums and DHS and Coast Guard APRs, contain appropriate information on known data reliability limitations, and update these documents, as needed, based on the results of the assessment. (Recommendation 3) |
In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will add a discussion of limitations for each measure as an appendix to future Annual Performance Reports. In February 2018, the Coast Guard reported that its fiscal year 2017 Annual Performance Report (APR) had been completed and includes an appendix with definitions for each measure, including a discussion of limitations. In addition, in June 2018, the Coast Guard provided additional documentation on its efforts to document limitations with two of the selected performance goals we reviewed--detected incursions of foreign fishing vessels and 5-year average number of recreational boating deaths and injuries. In particular, the Coast Guard provided copies of Department of Homeland Security Performance Measure Definition Form for each of these two goals, which include an explanation of the steps taken by the Coast Guard to ensure the consistency and integrity of related data. Subsequently, in August 2018, Coast Guard officials told us that after assessing the extent to which documentation on performance data reliability contains appropriate information on data limitations they found their documentation sufficient for their needs. The Coast Guard's efforts provide greater assurance that its reporting of limitations is comprehensive and provide greater transparency regarding the reliability and validity of the Coast Guard's performance data.
|
| United States Coast Guard | The Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop and document, in its APR or elsewhere, corrective actions for unmet performance goals that are measurable and include time frames for implementation. (Recommendation 4) |
In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. In its response, it stated that while not every missed annual performance target warrants a corrective action plan, it would develop corrective actions in appropriate program plans where merited. In November 2017, the Coast Guard stated that it expects to complete annual performance plans for its mission programs in April 2018 that would include initiatives to be undertaken to address significant mission gaps. In October 2019, the Coast Guard provided us with its signed Program Plan Compilation from the Deputy Commandant for Operations, which contained an appendix with the action initiatives for each plan. Specifically, this appendix discusses the courses of action, milestones, estimated resources, and performance gains anticipated for each program plan. Developing and documenting corrective actions may provide DHS and the Coast Guard management with greater assurance that the Coast Guard is taking steps to effectively address known performance gaps in a timely manner.
|
| United States Coast Guard | The Commandant of the Coast Guard should document, in its APR or elsewhere, its efforts to monitor and evaluate the implementation of corrective actions for unmet performance goals. (Recommendation 5) |
In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would include in future plans a discussion of corrective action plan status changes from the previously published plans, as appropriate. In November 2017, the Coast Guard reported that it had developed a template for presenting initiatives in annual plans for its mission programs. According to the Coast Guard, the template provides for a discussion of implementation progress and status. In October 2019 and March 2020, the Coast Guard provided us with copies of its Strategic Plan Objective Tracker, which are reviewed and updated monthly to assess how the Coast Guard is addressing the initiatives identified in the Deputy Commandant for Operations Program Plan. According to Coast Guard officials, the program plans are living documents that change over time. The Deputy Commandant for Operations conducts a monthly review of the initiatives, and the Commandant's Office reviews whether the identified milestones are met. By documenting its efforts to monitor and evaluate the implementation of planned corrective actions, the Coast Guard and stakeholders could more fully understand the extent to which corrective actions have been implemented, determine if these actions have helped to mitigate performance gaps as intended, and to continue to plan and prioritize its operations to target performance gaps.
|