jurisdiction: US

text: b' NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION\n 60 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington DC 20002\n tel 202 906.3000 tax 202 906.3306\n\n\n\n\n O.y AIVlTRAK\n\n\n\n\n Date\n\n To\n September 2, 20 I 0 From\n\n Department\n T"Alwe\n OIG, Amtrak\n ~cA-----.\n OIG Staff\n Subject NAPA RepOlt\n cc\n\n\n\n\nMessage . Nation Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Report\n\n Earlier this year, I asked the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct an\n organizational assessment of the Amtrak Office ofinspector General. The assessment was\n intended to help us implement the goals in our strategic plan by identifYing our core\n organizational strengths and weaknesses and developing specific, prioritized actions to improve\n OIG processes, policies, and management practices. NAPA assembled an expeIt panel and a\n project team to conduct the assessment and provided a written repOlt of their assessment on\n August 31, 2010 (Attached).\n\n NAPA\'s report contains observations and recommendations that are focused on eight areas where\n the assessment showed that the Amtrak OIG can enhance its operations. The eight areas are:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Communication\n \xe2\x80\xa2 External Communication\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Work Planning and Prioritization\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality and Timely Work Processes\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Independence\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policy Management and Updates\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Human Capital Management\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Performance Measures\n\n For each of these areas, NAPA identifies: a desired future state; the views ofOIG senior staff,\n employees, and external stakeholders on the OIG\'s strengths and weaknesses relative to the future\n state; best practices used by other OIG\'s; and immediate and longer term recommendations to\n . achieve the future state.\n\n The senior leadership of the OIG and I have reviewed the NAPA report and concur with the\n immediate and longer term recommendations offered in each ofthe eight areas. We will begin\n the process of assessing the actions needed to implement the recommendations and have set a\n goal of developing an action plan in the next 60-90 days.\n\x0c Page 2\n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xb7 In developing an action plan we will also consider the results of the recently completed Quality\n Assurance Reviews of the Offices ofinvestigations and Audits. These reviews identified issues\n and recommendations related to several of the areas discussed by NAPA, so considering them\n collectively will help ensure that our plan is comprehensive in addressing the areas where we can\n enhance our operations.\n\n Developing and implementing an effective action plan will require a concerted effort by all OIG\n employees. To this end, members of the senior leadership team have volunteered to serve as\n sponsors for each of the eight areas and we will solicit volunteers from across the OIG to work\n\xc2\xb7 with the sponsors in developing and implementing the plan; please let us know if you are\n interested in patiicipating in this initiative. Broad-based patiicipation throughout OIG will\n improve the quality of our effotis and help in developing a common understanding of the\n rationale for enhancing our operations. We have also engaged NAPA to assist us in developing\n actions for some portions of the plan with the highest levels of priority and urgency.\n\n We greatly appreciate the effotis of the NAPA panel and project team in conducting the\n assessment of our office. The project team members conducted the assessment in a timely,\n\xc2\xb7 effective and professional manner and our interactions with them and the panel members were\n enlightening. The repoti provides an excellent framework for helping us implement the goals and\n objectives in our strategic plan of becoming a model OIG.\n\n I look forward to working with each of you as we undetiake the next phase of this critical\n initiative.\n\x0cA Phase One Report by a Panel of the\n\nNATIONAL ACADEMY OF\nPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\nFor Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General\n\nAugust 2010\n\n\n\n\n The Amtrak Office of Inspector General\n An Organizational Assessment\n\n\n\n\n PANEL\n\n John Kamensky, Chair*\n Cheryle Broom*\n Harold Steinberg*\n Regina V.K. Williams*\n\n\n\n\n * Academy Fellow\n\x0c Officers of the Academy\n Kenneth S. Apfel, Chair of the Board\n Timothy B. Clark, Vice Chair\n Jennifer L. Dorn, President and Chief Executive Officer\n Diane M. Disney, Secretary\n John J. Callahan, Treasurer\n\n\n Project Staff Team\n Lena E. Trudeau, Vice President\n Lois Fu, Program Area Director\n Elizabeth Frazier, Project Director\n Brenna Isman, Senior Advisor\n Robert Giusti, Senior Advisor\n Leslie Overmyer-Day, Senior Analyst\n Chloe Yang, Research Associate\n Martha S. Ditmeyer, Senior Administrative Specialist\n William P. Shields, Jr., Editor\n\n\n________________________________________________________________________\n\nThe views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the\nviews of the Academy as an institution.\n\nNational Academy of Public Administration\n900 7th Street, N.W.\nSuite 600\nWashington, DC 20001-3888\nwww.napawash.org\n\nPublished August 2010\nPrinted in the United States of America\n\nAcademy Project Number: 2279\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 5\nBASELINE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 7\nBACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY................................................................................... 9\n BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 9\n METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 10\n CORE STRENGTHS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL......................... 12\n ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT.................................................................................... 13\nBENCHMARK AREAS ............................................................................................................. 15\n Benchmark Area #1 INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ......................................................... 15\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 15\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 15\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 17\n Benchmark Area #2 EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION ........................................................ 18\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 18\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 18\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 19\n Benchmark Area #3 WORK PLANNING AND PRIORITIZATION ..................................... 21\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 21\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 21\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 23\n Benchmark Area #4 QUALITY AND TIMELY WORK PROCESSES.................................. 24\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 24\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 24\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 26\n Benchmark Area #5 INDEPENDENCE................................................................................... 28\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 28\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 28\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 29\n Benchmark Area #6 POLICY MANAGEMENT AND UPDATES ........................................ 30\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 30\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 30\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 31\n Benchmark Area #7 HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT .................................................. 32\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 32\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 32\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 36\n Benchmark Area #8 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................. 38\n Future State ........................................................................................................................... 38\n Observations and Discussion ................................................................................................ 38\n Recommendations................................................................................................................. 39\nA PATH FORWARD ................................................................................................................. 41\n\x0c APPENDICES\n\nAppendix A. Content Analysis OIG Senior Staff Interviews................................................ A-1\nAppendix B. Content Analysis OIG Stakeholder Interviews ............................................... B-1\nAppendix C. Summary of Staff Survey Results ..................................................................... C-1\nAppendix D. Benchmarking with Other OIGs ...................................................................... D-1\nAppendix E. Baseline Summary .............................................................................................. E-1\nAppendix F. Crosswalk to Strategic Goal Six ........................................................................ F-1\nAppendix G. Bibliography .......................................................................................................G-1\nAppendix H. Panel Biographies...............................................................................................H-1\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s new Inspector General (IG) has voiced strong commitment to refocusing and\nreinvigorating the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and has recognized the need to maximize\nits internal efficiency and effectiveness to successfully deliver its mission. Fundamentally, OIG\nwork is aimed at improving Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s management, operations and delivery of services to the\npublic and ensuring responsible stewardship of public funds.\n\nThis report by an expert Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration is the result of\nan organizational assessment requested by the Amtrak OIG. The Panel and project team\ncommend the OIG for commissioning this independent assessment, which was not undertaken\nwith a predetermined outcome in mind, but inspired by a commitment to continuous\nimprovement and embracing industry best practices. The work of the OIG is intended to satisfy\nan important need at Amtrak and provide value to its stakeholders. Room for improvement\nexists in every organization; that is the principle that guided this work.\n\nIn this report, the Panel makes observations and recommendations in eight benchmark areas. For\neach area, the report defines the desired future state, summarizes Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strengths and\nweaknesses related to the future state, and recommends immediate \xe2\x80\x9cquick win\xe2\x80\x9d next steps as\nwell as longer term recommendations. Progress in these areas will significantly contribute to\noperational improvement. In addition, these recommendations reflect practices that industry-\nleading OIGs have instituted, while accounting for Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s unique needs, progress made\nto date and the organization\xe2\x80\x99s capacity constraints.\n\nBecoming a model OIG is a process, and multiple interim steps must occur before the desired\nfuture state can be achieved. In order to meet OIG industry standards and perform work of higher\nvalue to Amtrak and its stakeholders, the OIG will need to develop different skill sets in order to\nperform work that meets industry standards. OIG employees must be both willing and able to\nmake the necessary changes in work performance, and leadership must be prepared to make\ndifficult decisions, should employees be unable or fail to embrace the necessary changes.\n\nFUTURE STATE OF BENCHMARK AREAS\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Communication. Amtrak OIG is an organization with effective internal\n communication strategies that allow all OIG staff to be informed and invested in\n achieving a high-performance, high-accountability organizational mission.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 External Communication. Amtrak OIG has constructive relationships with Amtrak and\n congressional stakeholders that enable it to gather and share information about potential\n areas of risk, while maintaining independence and transparency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Work Planning and Prioritization. Amtrak OIG has a work planning and prioritization\n process that engages stakeholders in identifying and reducing areas of perceived risk, and\n fully assesses the nature, scope and inherent risks of Amtrak programs and operations.\n This process identifies high value work that provides strategic value to Amtrak and\n enables OIG to more effectively allocate its resources to this work.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality and Timely Work Processes. Amtrak OIG consistently follows commonly\n accepted work practices and standards both within functional areas and across locations.\n Work adheres to established quality standards and, as appropriate, is accessible and\n transparent to OIG staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Independence. Amtrak OIG has an independent and transparent relationship with its\n stakeholders, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Act and\n applicable industry standards. Each stakeholder group has a clear understanding and a\n practical, applied definition of what it means to have transparent interactions with an\n independent OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policy Management and Updates. Amtrak OIG maintains and applies current, accurate\n and consistent policy across the office; has a process to monitor changes in the external\n environment that affect its work practices and a mechanism to incorporate those changes\n into internal policy; and makes all guidance easily accessible to staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Human Capital Management. Amtrak OIG attracts and retains high-performing\n employees; has consistent job titles and job descriptions; and has in place training plans\n and performance management plans that link individual performance to OIG objectives.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Performance Measures. Amtrak OIG has performance metrics that reflect the\n requirements of the Inspector General Act; meet the expectations of GAO and Congress;\n reflect the value of OIG work to Amtrak; and align with OIG strategic goals. These\n metrics are integrated into OIG\xe2\x80\x99s operating and performance management systems.\n\nFor each of these eight future states, the Panel has identified both \xe2\x80\x9cquick win\xe2\x80\x9d opportunities as\nwell as longer term recommendations that the OIG should implement. These \xe2\x80\x9cquick win\xe2\x80\x9d\nopportunities and longer term recommendations are listed in each of the eight sections, as well as\nat the conclusion of the report.\n\nIt is important to note that the IG\xe2\x80\x99s willingness to engage staff and stakeholders in this\norganizational assessment\xe2\x80\x93\xe2\x80\x93indeed, in the candid process of identifying areas for\nimprovement\xe2\x80\x94enhanced the office\xe2\x80\x99s credibility among many stakeholders. All of the\nstakeholders who were part of the assessment want the Amtrak OIG to succeed, and appear\nwilling to work together to make that happen and support the difficult decisions that may need to\nbe made. At a time when the entire federal government is tasked to work more efficiently,\ncollaboratively and effectively on behalf of the American people, it is noteworthy that the\nleadership of this key oversight organization has recognized the importance of leading by\nexample and is prepared to make the necessary changes to do so.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Baseline Summary\n\nCurrent State Case for Change Future State\n\n\xc2\x83 OIG historically had minimal \xc2\x83 New IG and leadership team hail from high- \xc2\x83 Has effective internal communication strategies that allow all OIG\n communication between and performing OIGs; can educate and staff to be informed and invested in achieving a high-performance,\n among Executive team and communicate \xe2\x80\x9cwhat a successful OIG does\xe2\x80\x9d high-accountability organizational mission.\n functional groups to Amtrak, OIG employees, and stakeholders \xc2\x83 Has constructive relationships with Amtrak and Congressional\n\xc2\x83 New members of Executive \xc2\x83 Culture of fear and anxiety is not healthy or stakeholders that enable it to gather and share information about\n team have been well received by sustainable potential areas of risk, while maintaining independence and\n staff, and IG made a good \xc2\x83 Many OIG employees express desire to do transparency.\n number of early wins that won higher-quality work that they can take pride \xc2\x83 Has a work planning and prioritization process that engages\n him credibility with stakeholders in, and welcome learning about OIG best stakeholders in identifying and reducing areas of perceived risk,\n practices and fully assesses the nature, scope and inherent risks of Amtrak\n\xc2\x83 Staff waiting to see what\n changes leadership plans to \xc2\x83 Investigators\xe2\x80\x99 firearms were revoked; programs and operations.\n undertake. Staff feel they have minimally passed CIGIE peer review; lack of \xc2\x83 Consistently follows commonly accepted work practices and\n clarity about need for Amtrak OIG since DOT standards both within functional areas and across locations. Work\n received little communication OIG is viewed as strong\xe2\x80\xa6.OIG needs to\n about vision & next steps, so adheres to established quality standards and, as appropriate, is\n change lest it be taken over accessible and transparent to OIG staff.\n there is fear about anticipated\n change and job security \xc2\x83 Has an independent and transparent relationship with its\n CASE FOR stakeholders, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the IG Act\n\xc2\x83 Recognized need by OIG staff CHANGE\n ROADMAP\n and applicable industry standards. Each stakeholder group has a\n and stakeholders that OIG needs FUTURE\n CURRENT STATE\n clear understanding and a practical, applied definition of what it\n to start doing higher-value work\n BA\n\n\n\n\n STATE means to have transparent interactions with an independent OIG.\n RR\n\n\n\n\n of impact to Amtrak, and to\n IE\n\n\n\n\n \xc2\x83 Maintains and applies current, accurate and consistent policy\n RS\n\n\n\n\n follow consistent, quality\n across the office; has a process to monitor changes in the external\n processes\n environment that affect its work practices and a mechanism to\n\xc2\x83 OIG has had limited\n communication with Barriers incorporate those changes into internal policy; and makes all\n guidance easily accessible to staff.\n stakeholders. Stakeholders \xe2\x80\x93 \xc2\x83 Attracts and retrains high-performing employees; has consistent\n \xc2\x83 Culture of limited communication and\n both Amtrak and Hill - feel that \xe2\x80\x9cinformation/resource hoarding\xe2\x80\x9d job titles and job descriptions, and has in place training plans and\n historically they have been performance management plans that link individual performance\n alerted to issues too late \xc2\x83 Perception that different OIG staff might\n have different agendas; despite vocalized to OIG objectives.\n\xc2\x83 Independence of OIG and support for new OIG direction, all employees \xc2\x83 Has performance metrics that reflect the requirements of the IG\n relationship with the Board has might not be willing to make necessary Act, meet the expectations of GAO and Congress, reflect the\n been strengthened since IG changes value of the OIG work to Amtrak; and aligned with OIG strategic\n hire\xe2\x80\xa6need to institutionalize \xc2\x83 While recognized need to do more strategic goals. These metrics are integrated into the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s operating and\n processes so no \xe2\x80\x9cslippage\xe2\x80\x9d work, anxiety about what this means for job performance management systems.\n security and day to day routines\n \xc2\x83 Many OIG near retirement and may not\n welcome changes\n\x0cThis Page Left Intentionally Blank\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY\nBACKGROUND\n\nCreated by the Rail Passenger Service Act in 1970, the National Railroad Passenger\nCorporation\xe2\x80\x94better known as Amtrak\xe2\x80\x94is a government-owned corporation providing intercity\npassenger rail service in the United States. Because Amtrak receives significant federal funding,\nCongress established an Office of Inspector General (OIG) for it in 1989. The OIG\xe2\x80\x99s mission is\nto \xe2\x80\x9cconduct and supervise independent and objective audits, inspections, evaluations and\ninvestigations relating to agency programs and operations; promote economy, effectiveness and\nefficiency within the agency; prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse in agency programs and\noperations; review security and safety policies and programs; and review and make\nrecommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations.\xe2\x80\x9d 1\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Inspector General (IG), one of 30 Designated Federal Entity IGs, is appointed by and\nreports to the corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Board Chairman. Headquartered in Washington, DC, OIG has field\noffices in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Wilmington,\nDelaware. It is organized into five areas of responsibility: Audits, Inspections and Evaluations,\nInvestigations, Management and Policy, and Counsel to Inspector General. Figure 1 shows\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s current organizational structure.\n\n Figure 1: Amtrak OIG Organizational Chart 2\n\n\n\n\n1\n http://www.amtrakoig.gov/%28S%28g1ug5aqqeo3qp145lnqh1dzi%29%29/About.aspx\n2\n http://www.amtrakoig.gov/%28S%280zdcduq0szwzahrzqrypknmw%29%29/About.aspx?option=3\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cIn addition to its internal stakeholders, OIG must provide information to external decision\nmakers in an efficient, reliable and useful manner. Its work is aimed at improving Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nmanagement, operations and delivery of services to the public and ensuring responsible\nstewardship of public funds.\n\nFollowing 20 years under the leadership of its first and only IG, Amtrak launched a\ncomprehensive search for a successor after his unexpected retirement in June 2009. This period\nof uncertainty heightened a longstanding debate between Amtrak management and the OIG\nregarding the latter\xe2\x80\x99s operational independence. Further, an Audit peer review concluded in\nSeptember 2009 found that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures were outdated and did not fully\nincorporate current Government Auditing Standards.\n\nThe Amtrak Board\xe2\x80\x99s desire to transform OIG into an industry-leading model led to the\nappointment of Ted Alves, a seasoned member of the IG community, as its IG in November\n2009. Critical changes were undertaken within the first six months of his tenure. A Deputy IG\nposition and separate Investigations Division were created, and an Assistant Inspector General\nfor Investigations and Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audits were appointed. OIG also\ncompleted a Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2010-2014, which aligns its goals with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nmission and goals. Notably, OIG added a sixth goal related to internal operations: \xe2\x80\x9cLeading by\nexample as a model OIG organization.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nRecent changes have also affected OIG\xe2\x80\x99s annual appropriations and relationship with Amtrak\nmanagement. Previously, OIG submitted its budget request to Congress as part of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nannual grant request. To maintain OIG independence and a productive relationship with Amtrak,\nCongress determined that OIG should no longer rely on the corporation for its funding. The\nConsolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 authorized a direct appropriation of $19 million for\nOIG. The act required that Amtrak management and OIG develop a set of relationship policies\nand procedures that \xe2\x80\x9care consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Inspector General Act of\n1978.\xe2\x80\x9d In 2010, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)\nconfirmed that the new jointly developed policies and procedures complied with the letter and\nspirit of the act.\n\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nThe new leadership team has exhibited a strong commitment to refocusing and reinvigorating\nAmtrak OIG, and has recognized the need to maximize its internal efficiency and effectiveness\nto successfully deliver its mission. To that end, it engaged the National Academy of Public\nAdministration to conduct an independent assessment of its current operations and identify\nbusiness process improvements to help it become a model OIG. The overall project\nencompasses this organizational assessment and an option to develop selected implementation\nroadmaps.\n\nThe National Academy formed an expert Panel to direct and oversee the study and a study team\nto conduct the work. The team employed a straightforward approach to the organizational\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cassessment that formed the basis for the Panel\xe2\x80\x99s observations and recommendations. It was built\naround the following key questions:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Where are we? Defining the \xe2\x80\x9cas is\xe2\x80\x9d state of the organization.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Where do we need to be? Addressing the future state.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 What is keeping us from it? Identifying barriers or challenges to achieve the future state.\n\nFigure 2 summarizes this approach.\n\n Figure 2: Project Approach\n\n\n\n\nThe organizational assessment, conducted between April and July 2010, relies on data from\nmultiple sources, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviews with 17 OIG senior team and staff members who participated in strategic plan\n development;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviews with 22 OIG stakeholders, including representatives of the Amtrak leadership\n team, members of the Amtrak Board of Directors, OIG consultants, and congressional\n committee staff;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviews with 11 representatives of comparable OIGs considered \xe2\x80\x9chigh performing\xe2\x80\x9d\n within the IG community;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A survey of all OIG staff (91 total), which generated a 90 percent response rate; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An extensive review of relevant documents, including strategic plans, CIGIE reports, the\n 2009 audit peer review and IG congressional testimony.\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cThe four-member Academy Panel held two formal meetings, provided guidance concerning the\nstudy team\xe2\x80\x99s research and analysis, and deliberated and approved the report\xe2\x80\x99s findings,\nconclusions and recommendations. Appendix H provides the names and biographies of the\nPanel members.\n\n\nCORE STRENGTHS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nThe organizational assessment identified a number of strengths of the Amtrak OIG that can be\nleveraged in addressing its challenges. Data sources, including the staff survey and OIG and\nstakeholder interviews, support a consensus around these indicators of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strengths, and\nalso yield a number of associated weaknesses.\n\nStrong New Leadership\n\nNearly all stakeholders and members of the OIG senior staff who were interviewed identified the\nnew IG and members of his leadership team as core strengths of the office. It is widely\nrecognized that many members of the leadership team come from high-performing OIGs, where\nthey earned a great deal of credibility. Specific actions or leadership traits cited as providing\nvalue to the Amtrak OIG include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reorganizing to streamline operations and promote effectiveness.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Committing to development of a solid foundation and operating framework.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Filling key senior positions with well-qualified professionals.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Changing the type of work that the office performs to include more strategic work of\n higher value to Amtrak.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Committing the office to a consistent and high standard for performing work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strengthening relationships with stakeholders through ongoing outreach.\n\nStaff and stakeholders expressed optimism that the new IG and his team will be able to translate\nbest practice and industry standards from other OIGs to Amtrak, and indicated positive reactions\nto the changes they have seen thus far.\n\nInterviewees also noted that this independent organizational assessment reflects the new\ndirection that the IG is taking the office and is viewed by stakeholders as a bold and\ncommendable action.\n\nOIG Staff\n\nSurvey results and staff interviews indicated that Amtrak OIG staff have significant areas of\nstrength. Examples provided include staff\xe2\x80\x99s deep knowledge of railroad operations and\ncommitment to the organization. Some interviewees identified specific individuals who exhibit\nexceptional capabilities and positive attitudes. It is interesting to note, however, that while the\nmajority of staff survey respondents indicated that they felt motivated and inspired to do their\nbest work, many OIG senior staff, Amtrak leadership, and stakeholder interviewees voiced the\nconcern that many of the OIG staff may be resistant to change and may not be motivated to\n\n\n 12\n\x0cperform higher-value and higher-quality OIG work. If true, these individuals will require\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s attention to avoid a negative influence on the culture or impede the success of the\nchanges needed.\n\nKnowledge of Railroad Operations\n\nKnowledgeable staff was cited as a noteworthy attribute. To properly evaluate Amtrak\noperations, many believe it is imperative to understand them. Many OIG survey respondents (36\npercent) were Amtrak employees prior to joining OIG. However, what is perceived as a core\nstrength by some is cited a weakness by others as OIG staff could be less than objective or may\noverstep into management affairs. It was noted that many OIG staff have not been trained on\nstandard OIG work processes and may not fully understand the limits that a staff member of the\nOIG must adhere to with regard to advising or participating in management decisions. Some\ninterviewees cited instances in which OIG employees inappropriately participated in Amtrak\nmanagement decision making, and have acted in a more directive role than is appropriate.\n\nValue of the Office of the Inspector General\n\nFinally, there is the perceived value of the OIG itself. Stakeholders were asked about the value\nthat the office brings to the Amtrak organization and the impact of its work. Respondents\nbelieved that, in some cases, OIG has helped to identify and translate best practices in managing\ninfrastructure assets, and mentioned specific reports that were helpful. Overwhelmingly,\ninterviewees valued the external, objective perspective that the OIG could offer (as opposed to\nwhat it currently does offer), noting that the office could add objective perspectives not\notherwise available. It was noted that a high-functioning OIG could help Amtrak staff identify\nemerging issues before they develop into real problems, and \xe2\x80\x9cconnect the dots\xe2\x80\x9d among Amtrak\nunits, since OIG can develop the overarching perspective necessary to detect high-level trends.\n\nThe positive attitude among Amtrak staff and OIG stakeholders about the increased value that a\nhigh-performing OIG could offer is an important foundation for performance improvement\nefforts.\n\n\nORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT\n\nThis report is divided into eight benchmark areas. For each area, the Panel defines the future\nstate, discusses Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strengths and weaknesses, and recommends immediate \xe2\x80\x9cquick\nwin\xe2\x80\x9d next steps as well as recommendations that will take longer to implement.\n\nThe data collection process surfaced strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and risks with respect\nto Amtrak OIG operations. The practices of benchmarked OIGs are integrated into the\nobservations and discussion sections to illustrate opportunities for improvement or potential risks\nto current practices.\n\nThe Panel believes that its \xe2\x80\x9cquick win\xe2\x80\x9d and longer term recommendations will contribute\nsignificantly to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s operational improvement. The recommendations reflect practices that\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cindustry-leading OIGs have instituted, yet take into account OIG\xe2\x80\x99s unique needs, progress made\nto date and existing capacity constraints.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c BENCHMARK AREAS\n\nBenchmark Area #1\nINTERNAL COMMUNICATION\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG is an organization with effective internal communication strategies that allow all\nOIG staff to be informed and invested in achieving a high-performance, high-accountability\norganizational mission.\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nA strong majority of OIG staff and stakeholder interviewees felt that the Amtrak IG began his\ntenure with an open door policy, which has helped begin to break down information silos and\npromote sharing across OIG units. In addition, the IG has begun to actively engage OIG staff;\nfor example, a March 2010 all-hands meeting outlined the development of the OIG strategic plan\nand steps to achieve its goals.\n\nAn inclusive, comprehensive and visible communication style, which includes regular all-staff\nmeetings, characterizes all the benchmarked OIGs. In these highly respected OIGs, leaders\nexhibit strong, positive working styles and conduct frequent conversations and meetings with\nstaff. Nonetheless, these OIGs indicated that communication among auditors and investigators\nwas an ongoing challenge. One remarked that employing cross-functional teams in a meaningful\nway helped to improve communication across the units. Another uses informal multi-unit\nteleconferences to ensure that offices in disparate locations touch base with each other and\ndiscuss issues on a regular basis.\n\nNearly three quarters of staff survey respondents were highly satisfied with their immediate\nsupervisors\xe2\x80\x99 communication of OIG goals and priorities. The same proportion had a generally\npositive view of their own managers\xe2\x80\x99 ability to see the \xe2\x80\x9cbig picture\xe2\x80\x9d across audits, investigations\nand evaluations, as well as their understanding of the full range of programs across Amtrak. This\nattribute is fundamental to transparency, a key priority that several benchmarked OIGs\nhighlighted. One benchmarked IG emphasized the importance of making every OIG report\navailable to all staff to foster an open culture of information sharing and learning.\n\nHistorically, Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s culture has inhibited the information sharing necessary for a model\nOIG. Several interviewees observed that information flows within Amtrak OIG were on a need-\nto-know basis and that some OIG employees tried to \xe2\x80\x9choard\xe2\x80\x9d information and staff resources;\nthis led to a culture based on rumor, suspicion, and frustration. Neither managers nor staff\nroutinely shared information and, as a result, the OIG was unable to capitalize on information\nthat could have been available through both regular and informal information sharing\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0copportunities. Field offices, in particular, are not well integrated into the operations of the OIG,\nand they have had limited communication or interaction with HQ employees.\n\nRecent developments have started the process of open communication at Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x94staff\nwere encouraged by the March all-hands meeting, for example\xe2\x80\x94but communication across the\nentire OIG still does not occur with regularity. Many attendees expressed the opinion that the\nall-hands meeting was too \xe2\x80\x9cscripted\xe2\x80\x9d and that communication within and from senior leadership\ncould be improved. Survey respondents were significantly less satisfied with communication\nfrom senior leadership than from their direct supervisors. Forty-nine percent agreed or strongly\nagreed that, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Executive Team effectively communicates the goals and priorities of the OIG,\xe2\x80\x9d\ncompared with 73 percent who agreed with that statement regarding communication with their\ndirect supervisor.\n\nBenchmarked organizations conduct ongoing communication both within and across functions,\nincluding sharing weekly activity reports and functional report drafts with other groups for\ncomment. Technology is an effective tool to enable internal communication, but it has not been\neffectively utilized to date in Amtrak OIG. There is now a secure subnet that could potentially\nserve as an internal Intranet, but employees do not use it regularly, and interviewees were not\nconfident that it would provide a dynamic, two-way communication mechanism. In contrast,\nbenchmarked OIGs view their Intranet as a communication mechanism and performance support\ntool; most staff access it at least weekly. One benchmarked OIG created a blog on its Intranet for\nsenior leaders to share information with staff and enhance two-way communication among all\nstaff, regardless of location.\n\nLeadership reported that Amtrak OIG historically has struggled with communicating\norganizational progress and staff accomplishments in an impactful manner. Amtrak OIG\nleadership should not be shy about sharing good news with OIG staff in order to help build pride\nand confidence in the new organization. For example, an intranet site could be used to share\nsuch items as the positive feedback received from the Amtrak President and Board Chairman on\na recent IG report. Dashboards and other regular reports can also be effective. One\nbenchmarked OIG reported that he meets weekly with each division head and division leadership\nto discuss on-going work and to review open cases and a multi-colored spreadsheet depicting\nprogress on audits and work streams. Another sends a weekly communication that includes\ninformation about promotions, open positions, and new hires, as well as birthdays, marriages and\nbirths.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 1. Institute regular top-down communication practices, including a monthly email to all\n staff that highlights on-going work, employee achievements, and OIG successes.\n 2. Conduct regularly scheduled (at least monthly) AIG unit meetings to discuss new work\n and progress on current work, emerging issues, current events, etc. The IG and/or\n Deputy IG should attend these meetings on a rotating basis. In addition, the IG/Deputy\n should attend meetings at which the AIG and his/her staff will be making critical go/no-\n go decisions regarding ongoing work, so that staff recognizes such milestones are\n important and that leadership is engaged in the newly developed Audit processes.\n 3. Hold at least two all-staff meetings per year that include an opportunity for staff to make\n presentations, ask questions of leadership, and recognize high-performing employees.\n 4. Develop mechanisms to allow OIG staff to give feedback to management.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 5. Make more effective use of technology and face-to-face meetings to strengthen internal\n communications and build a culture of transparency and information sharing. It should\n explore the following mechanisms to do so:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Create and actively populate an Intranet site (secure subnet) with report and\n process information that will enable more productive and efficient workflow.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Contribute to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s monthly internal publications to communicate about OIG\n work efforts and celebrate staff successes and milestones.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop visual dashboards and representations of ongoing work to communicate\n the status of organizational activities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Have members of senior leadership conduct a number of field visits and divisional\n staff meetings annually.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Adhere to a regular schedule of senior staff meetings and office-wide meetings,\n utilizing video conferencing capability if possible.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Build a measure regarding internal communication and information sharing into\n employee accountability plans.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cBenchmark Area #2\nEXTERNAL COMMUNICATION\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG has constructive relationships with Amtrak and congressional stakeholders that\nenable it to gather and share information about potential areas of risk while maintaining\nindependence and transparency.\n\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nStakeholders were optimistic about the positive start to their relationship with the new IG. Many\nnoted that the IG has done an excellent job at reaching out to them and has built a great deal of\ngoodwill and credibility thus far. They are eager to see examples of how OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work will be\ndifferent once the IG and his leadership team are able to initiate work under new guidelines and\nleadership.\n\nThe Amtrak Board has been pleased with the new IG\xe2\x80\x99s communication of OIG activities during\nBoard meetings, and has increased time allotted on its agenda from 30 minutes to one hour. This\ntime provides an ideal opportunity for the IG to discuss ongoing areas of concern with the Board,\nas well as to gain a better understanding of perceived areas of risk from the governance\nperspective. This time should be viewed by both parties as an opportunity for discussion, not\nsimply a presentation by the IG. Transparency is critical to building trust and confidence, even\nwhen the IG must refrain from sharing specific information about ongoing work.\n\nCongressional stakeholders voiced similar optimism that the Amtrak IG will act boldly and focus\non issues of substance moving forward. The IG and his congressional liaison meet regularly\nwith congressional staff to proactively engage them in discussions of concern. The new IG also\nhas strong experience and credibility within the OIG community, which can be leveraged when\neducating Amtrak stakeholders about OIG roles and responsibilities.\n\nAt the same time, numerous shortcomings must be addressed, both from a structural perspective\nand an educational dimension. OIG does not have an established process with standardized\ntimeframes for providing updates to stakeholders. For example, as subjects of a report, some\nhave not had the opportunity to comment prior to public release. One interviewee characterized\npast practice by saying that auditors simply \xe2\x80\x9cdisappeared\xe2\x80\x9d once an engagement started, gave no\nprogress reports, and then re-emerged following a significant period of time. All stakeholders\nindicated that they would like to know how and when OIG will communicate with them going\nforward, so it will be particularly important to establish clear expectations about interaction\nduring audits and other OIG engagements. \xc2\xa0\n\nIn addition, many stakeholders at Amtrak said they and their staffs would benefit from a clearer\nunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities of an independent, high-performing OIG. Board\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cmember interviewees also said they could benefit from learning more. Two senior management\nteam members also noted that it would be beneficial to clearly define and communicate OIG\nroles and responsibilities to internal and external stakeholders. An \xe2\x80\x9cOIG 101\xe2\x80\x9d presentation or\nbrochure may be especially helpful in this regard.\n\nThere is a perception that some stakeholders are given more information than others. Some\nAmtrak staff and Board members believe that Congress sometimes has received critical\ninformation without the opportunity for Amtrak to respond. Meanwhile, congressional\ninterviewees thought that they received information only when an issue became critical and it\nwas too late to effectively resolve it. Given that each stakeholder group believes the other is\narmed with more information than the other, it is imperative that the Amtrak OIG maintains\nconsistent, transparent communication. One benchmarked OIG issues a monthly or quarterly\n\xe2\x80\x9cissues and highlights report\xe2\x80\x9d to both agency management and Hill stakeholders in order to\nminimize the perception that information is unevenly shared.\n\nWith much credit due for recent progress, communications with Congress must be conducted in\nan increasingly responsive and proactive manner that can produce maximum benefit for Amtrak\nOIG, including established timeframes for sending OIG reports to the Hill. One benchmarked\nOIG sends reports to Congress concurrent with public release and has the project team brief\nrelevant staffers. This not only ensures regular and productive communications with the Hill, but\nalso engages and motivates OIG staff. Developing candid and productive relationships with key\nSenate and House staff presents an opportunity to manage contentious issues more effectively.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 6. Develop a practical, \xe2\x80\x9capplied\xe2\x80\x9d definition of independence and a succinct statement of the\n benefits and value of an independent OIG for use with the OIG staff, Amtrak Board of\n Directors, and Amtrak Senior Management. This would serve to clarify the nature of\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work and help build support for its transformation.\n 7. Once new work processes are established this fall, OIG leadership should meet with both\n Amtrak and Congressional stakeholders to brief them on the new processes, and let them\n know how and when each of them can expect to receive updates, be part of an official\n comment period, and/or receive information and reports.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 8. Establish standard procedures for reporting to external stakeholders. It should carefully\n develop a manageable list and schedule of regular updates (both oral and written),\n examples of which may include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop a standard reporting instrument and structure for congressional\n stakeholders.\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Author a monthly column in the Amtrak newsletter. (This does not have to be\n authored by the IG each month; AIGs, project leaders and other staff could\n contribute.)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide regular written updates to the Amtrak Board to supplement meeting\n presentations; these could also be sent to management and Congress to promote\n transparency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish protocols for communicating with the Board, management and\n congressional staff, utilizing key technology resources.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Significantly improve the OIG website to create a user-friendly and informative\n tool for communicating about OIG activities and results.\n\n9. Develop and conduct \xe2\x80\x9cOIG 101\xe2\x80\x9d training sessions. OIG and Amtrak staff, some\n members of Amtrak senior management, and the Board of Directors could all benefit\n from a practical presentation that explains what it means to interact with an independent\n OIG, including examples of \xe2\x80\x9cgood\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cbad\xe2\x80\x9d interactions.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cBenchmark Area #3:\nWORK PLANNING AND PRIORITIZATION\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG has a work planning and prioritization process that engages stakeholders in\nidentifying and reducing areas of perceived risk, and fully assesses the nature, scope and inherent\nrisks of Amtrak programs and operations. This process identifies high value work that provides\nstrategic value to Amtrak and enables OIG to more effectively allocate its resources to this work.\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nAs five senior OIG officials reported, OIG leadership recognizes that it must perform higher\nvalue work that has strategic impact to Amtrak, and that it needs a process that objectively\nidentifies and prioritizes Amtrak programs as potential subjects of audit, investigation, inspection\nor evaluation. A major step in this direction was the development of the OIG strategic plan in\nearly 2010, which has been well received by OIG leadership and staff. Eighty-one percent of\nstaff who responded to the survey said they had a good understanding of the plan and the same\npercentage supported its goals. Among other steps recently undertaken, the OIG has:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Begun to transition internal control compliance functions to Amtrak.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Required all audit and evaluation employees, regardless of tenure, to take \xe2\x80\x9cAudit 101,\xe2\x80\x9d\n evidence, and report writing classes to ensure that they have baseline knowledge of\n industry standard audit procedures.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Begun to educate investigators about what a \xe2\x80\x9cbig picture\xe2\x80\x9d strategic investigation would\n resemble and what skill sets it would require; the AIG also has plans to conduct fraud\n awareness training for Amtrak employees.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Hired a seasoned consultant with IG experience to document standard quality work\n processes; this work should be completed in September 2010.\n\nThe benchmarked OIGs noted the need to scan the external environment for potential issues to\nensure that OIG priorities appropriately consider agency challenges and needs, and to help build\ntrusted relationships with stakeholders. It is noteworthy that the Amtrak IG has held regular\nmeetings with the Board Chairman and leadership, met monthly with the President and CEO, and\nmoved to improve relationships and increase transparency with Congress. He has committed to\nengaging in continuous dialogue with these stakeholders throughout the year, thus providing the\nopportunity to identify emerging issues and potential risks before they become problematic.\n\nAmtrak OIG is to be commended for developing a multi-year strategic plan, though it was noted\nthat the development process could be improved. The plan was developed primarily by middle\nmanagers, and a number of staff thought that it would be helpful for senior leaders to provide\nstrategic direction and facilitate communication among different functional units as the plan is\nupdated. Several interviewees identified the need to better educate OIG staff about what the plan\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cmeans to employees. Benchmarked OIGs noted the importance of updating the plan annually to\nreflect year-to-year operating reality.\n\nAmtrak OIG leadership clearly recognizes the value of developing an annual work plan that\nengages all OIG staff\xe2\x80\x94particularly senior managers\xe2\x80\x94in the identification and prioritization of\nwork. Nevertheless, limited staff skill sets and capacity impede leadership\xe2\x80\x99s ability to broadly\nengage OIG staff at this time. Specific constraints include the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many OIG staff are consumed by triaging and closing out work initiated under the prior\n IG\xe2\x80\x99s tenure and processes (much of which should not have been initiated), and do not\n currently have the capacity to take on additional work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance functions must be fully transitioned to Amtrak in order to free up staff\n resources to conduct higher value work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many staff do not have experience with impactful, strategically-focused OIG work, so\n would have difficulty effectively generating ideas for consideration.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many staff are nearing eligibility for retirement and some may not welcome changing the\n type or focus of work that historically has been performed.\n\nMany OIG and stakeholder interviewees said that not only do many OIG staff not have the skill\nset to identify high value OIG work, but also, as discussed in greater depth later in the report,\nthat many staff do not have the skill set necessary to conduct the resulting work. Many auditors\nlack a working knowledge of Yellow Book standards, and many evaluators are knowledgeable in\ntheir subject matter area but also lack a solid understanding of Yellow Book standards used by\nthe IG community.\n\nFurther, Amtrak itself may not thoroughly understand its risks. Board members and leadership\nindicate that they are familiar with areas of operational risk, but two benchmarked OIGs\nencourage their agencies to address risk awareness more comprehensively than is done at\nAmtrak. Specifically, these OIGs encourage agencies to undertake a comprehensive enterprise\nrisk management process, which the IG considers with its identified risks as part of the annual\nplanning process.\n\nFinally, most benchmarked OIGs said they use specific risk factors to rank and prioritize\nsuggestions generated by an external scan. Examples of criteria include dollar value, prior audit\ncoverage, external interest, public sensitivity, and IG discretion/judgment. The Amtrak IG\nrecognizes the value of having established ranking criteria to increase transparency about the\ntypes of work performed, and plans to do so in the future.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cRecommendations\n\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n\n 10. Create a means to identify and close out all low-priority OIG work by the end of this\n fiscal year. One approach would be to require all staff to submit to their AIG an\n inventory of all open projects under their purview, including the date the project was\n initiated, the current status, the staff assigned to the project and estimated staff time\n required to complete the work, and the projected completion date. If the projected\n completion date is after October 1, 2010, the project lead should provide a written\n justification as to why the work should not be terminated.\n 11. Discuss areas of perceived risk with the Amtrak Board and management, with the goal of\n identifying issues to be addressed in the annual OIG work plan for the coming fiscal year.\n 12. Hold an extended (potentially offsite) meeting of senior staff from headquarters and field\n offices, AIGs, and senior OIG leadership to discuss and finalize the upcoming year\xe2\x80\x99s\n priorities.\n 13. Institute a twice-yearly meeting among all AIGs and Amtrak senior team members to\n discuss any areas of concern regarding OIG/Amtrak interaction, as well as perceived or\n emerging risks to the corporation.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 14. Develop a comprehensive work prioritization plan, including interim operational\n milestones and a communications plan, that will launch in Fall 2011. The plan should\n result from a process that is owned by the senior management team, includes OIG staff\n and stakeholder input, and applies risk factors and criteria to prioritize work. It will also\n be important to develop and implement a communications strategy for the work plan that\n is undertaken in fall 2010. Staff should understand that the formal work prioritization\n process will be launched in fall 2011, but interim steps are being undertaken to ensure\n continued progress. Ultimately, the annual work plan must be clearly aligned with the\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Plan and Human Capital Plan.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cBenchmark Area #4:\nQUALITY AND TIMELY WORK PROCESSES\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG consistently follows commonly accepted work practices and standards both within\nfunctional areas and across locations. Work adheres to established quality standards and, as\nappropriate, is accessible and transparent to OIG staff.\n\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nAll OIG staff interviewed recognized that consistent, clear work processes are key to every well\nfunctioning organization; many indentified the need for their work to adhere to established\nguidance, such as the Yellow Book, which all benchmarked OIGs follow. They also agreed that\nit would helpful to have clear expectations about what audits, evaluations and investigations to\nconduct and how to conduct them.\n\nSurvey and interview data indicate that the lack of documented and well understood processes,\ntools and deadlines has resulted in misaligned resources, inconsistent report formats and\ninadequate accountability. Some interviewees, both among staff and stakeholders, noted a\nconcern about the review process\xe2\x80\x94including the number, levels and timeframes of reviews\xe2\x80\x94\nand the lack of standard formats or quality control for different types of work. They also noted\nthe lack of standards for report writing, and said reports often are outdated by the time the review\nprocess is complete.\n\nSpecific shortcomings that were identified include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audits have not been conducted in accordance with Yellow Book standards or in a timely\n manner, with established deadlines and quality control for fact checking and independent\n referencing. Although OIG recently passed a peer review, deficiencies were found in its\n policies and procedures across the office, particularly with regard to adherence to Yellow\n Book standards. Actions are underway to correct these deficiencies and new guidance is\n scheduled for implementation by September 2010, with training to occur this Fall.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The majority of Investigators do not currently meet the federal standards that would\n permit them to carry firearms, and many may not even be eligible to attend required\n training standards due to physical or other limitations. Investigators have not consistently\n followed investigative standards; numerous interviewees cited examples in which\n Investigators conducted interviews without appropriate notice to Amtrak employees, or\n did not document their requests for information from employees. One stakeholder\n familiar with the OIG Investigative unit said he does not believe that the Investigative\n Unit would be able to pass an independent peer review, and believes that the work\n practices of this unit undermines the credibility of the entire Amtrak OIG.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 The Inspections and Evaluation group has produced some reports that were valued by\n Amtrak, but they did not, and were not required to, prepare these products in accordance\n with Yellow Book standards.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG has not been consistently tracking the status of its recommendations. Congress is\n increasingly interested in knowing about recommendations not accepted or implemented\n by management, and OIG has recently begun to track these data. Staff and stakeholders\n are hopeful that the new Amtrak audit liaison will take on the task of reviewing the status\n of findings and recommendations, particularly once work under the new IG\xe2\x80\x99s leadership\n and guidelines is fully initiated.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff do not consistently use such electronic tools as TeamMate for auditors and\n Amtrak Investigations Management System (AIMS) for investigators; there is\n insufficient guidance, policy or training for the use of these systems. Until staff\n consistently input information into the systems, they cannot be used to document and\n track ongoing work. Among staff surveyed, 37 percent believe that guidance and training\n provided for TeamMate is very poor or poor, while 34 percent felt the same about AIMS\n guidance and training. All staff should use these systems to support progress monitoring,\n accountability and transparency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Field offices are not well integrated into HQ operations, and may not represent the most\n efficient or appropriate location of where work needs to be performed; many field offices\n also do not have a critical mass of employees nor appropriate supervisory relationships.\n\nStaff, management and stakeholders identified the need for more structured work processes and\nquality control in nearly every interview. Twenty-nine percent of staff respondents asked for\ntechnical guidance and standardized, transparent work processes. Establishing and enforcing\nadherence to common practices and standards will also support increased accountability. \xc2\xa0\n\nMost OIG interviewees said expectations about standard processes have begun to be\ncommunicated. These include statements made at the March 2010 all-staff meeting, the\nmandated Audit 101 training, and informal communications. The next step is to provide clear\nguidance about what these expectations mean for day-to-day operations via training scheduled\nfor this Fall. Amtrak OIG is currently doing what all benchmarked OIGs have done: improve\nthe culture through written guidance and training, clear and direct messages, ongoing\ncommunication about expectations and holding individuals and managers accountable for\nfollowing standard procedures.\n\nAmtrak OIG has hired an experienced OIG consultant to document its Audit processes, the result\nof which is due for completion in September 2010. Developing guidance is critical to unifying\nan organization and forming a common groundwork for change. One benchmarked OIG\nundertook a major revision of its standard operating procedures during a time of similar\norganizational change. It tasked each field office with writing a chapter of the manual that\ncovered a specific task or topic. An AIG then compiled the chapters and did a master edit before\nsigning off and distributing the guidance. Engaging all staff engendered support for and\nunderstanding of the procedures across the OIG.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cSenior staff interviewees offered a number of constructive ideas about the changes needed and\nappeared receptive to the changes already undertaken. Survey respondents also provided\nsuggestions. Twenty-one percent of survey respondents identified the need for guidance\nregarding report preparation process and style, as well as for training on TeamMate, AIMS, and\noverall standards and guidelines. Overall, staff survey respondents had positive perceptions\nabout staff willingness to adopt changes and learn new processes. More than 80 percent agreed\nor strongly agreed that staff are willing to learn how to use these new tools, which will be an\nimportant factor in adopting OIG-wide practices and automation. Only when such requirements\nare instituted will it be clear whether such willingness \xe2\x80\x93 and ability \xe2\x80\x93 truly exists.\n\nThe recently created audit liaison position could be utilized to facilitate retrieval of information\nfor audits, in addition to tracking implementation of recommendations. Benchmarked OIGs also\nreported increased use of interim work reports to ensure that the reports are on the right track,\nand ensure that agency and congressional staff receive information in a timely manner. For\nexample, several OIGs issue interim technical advisory reports, or share preliminary findings\nwith stakeholders if they can facilitate immediate improvements to a program.\n\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 15. Ensure that productive, engaging training on the newly developed policies and\n procedures for Audit and I&E occurs this fall.\n 16. Require and provide basic written instruction to all OIG employees to utilize the\n appropriate electronic project management system, so that project activities can be\n documented and project progress can be assessed.\n 17. After training is completed, identify a number of audits or other work that can be\n completed within a relatively short time period (e.g., 120 days). This work can provide\n indicators of whether employees understand and are adhering to the new policies; it will\n also provide the benefit of being able to provide finished work products to share with\n Amtrak, the Hill and OIG staff in the relatively near term.\n 18. Find any and all opportunities to celebrate products of the improved work processes and\n training. Recognize strong employees and report success. Provide examples of \xe2\x80\x9cgood\n reports\xe2\x80\x9d and models of behavior going forward.\n 19. For Investigators, establish a deadline by which they must meet Attorney General\n Guidelines to carry firearms and carry out law enforcement actions, and create a plan of\n action for those who are unable to meet the required standards\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 20. Continue to place priority on developing internal policy and guidance, and pay special\n attention to defining how Yellow Book standards will apply to audits and evaluations.\n\n\n 26\n\x0c Many of the basic principles apply to both types of work. Efforts should also continue to\n codify internal guidance on investigative practices. This work deserves priority attention,\n as the positive improvement of the office depends heavily upon having these solid\n foundations of policy and guidance.\n\n21. Ensure compliance with internal policy and guidance once they are developed. Specific\n approaches include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Make the guidance and tools easily accessible. Devote resources to host and\n maintain policies and procedures on an OIG Intranet site, with access open to all\n OIG staff for easy reference.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Require that all staff members use TeamMate and AIMS in accordance with the\n underlying policy\xe2\x80\x99s intended goals. Centrally manage customization and training\n to ensure a unified approach.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop and execute a training plan for staff in basic office processes and\n practices. Conduct the training shortly after finalizing the guidance to expedite\n the transition to a consistent work approach.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Monitor application of standards and hold managers and staff accountable for\n following the policies and procedures on a regular basis, as well as in annual\n performance reviews. Employ a routine, \xe2\x80\x9cdashboard-type\xe2\x80\x9d progress report\n against work plans, and a consistent quality assurance review process to reinforce\n adherence to standards in methods and final products.\n\n22. Consider whether field offices should be relocated, eliminated or staffed differently, in\n light of new OIG work flows, supervisory relationships, and project staffing. Ensure that\n each OIG field office can operate cost-effectively: that it has adequate work to perform;\n its location is consistent with the work that OIG needs to be performed; it has a critical\n mass of employees to perform the necessary work; and it has a supervisor who has an\n appropriate number of employees to manage, as well as the experience and skill set to\n provide employees with the necessary guidance and supervision. In some cases, field\n offices may need to be consolidated and/or supervisors may have to be hired.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0cBenchmark Area #5:\nINDEPENDENCE\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG has an independent and transparent relationship with its stakeholders, in accordance\nwith the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Act and applicable industry standards. Each\nstakeholder group has a clear understanding and a practical, applied definition of what it means\nto have transparent interactions with an independent OIG.\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nEvery interviewee\xe2\x80\x93\xe2\x80\x93staff and stakeholder alike\xe2\x80\x93\xe2\x80\x93supported OIG\xe2\x80\x99s independence and recognized\nthat constructive, transparent stakeholder relationships are crucial to maintaining it. All\nrespondents believed that Amtrak OIG has made great strides in establishing independence and\nimproving relationships since the appointment of the new IG, whom they recognized must have\nadequate in-house capability to ensure operational independence. The Board and Amtrak\nmanagement echoed this sentiment, commending OIG leadership\xe2\x80\x99s openness, transparency and\nheightened presence at Board meetings. Board members understand that they do not have the\nauthority to direct OIG\xe2\x80\x99s activities.\n\nRecent developments further demonstrate a strengthened level of OIG independence. First, the\nConsolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 authorized a direct appropriation to OIG to ensure that\nit is no longer dependent on Amtrak for funding and to increase its perceived and actual\nindependence. Second, Amtrak and OIG cooperatively developed new relationship policies and\nprocedures to ensure productive interactions. Interviewees cited this document as a great start\nand noted the positive spirit with which it was created. As required by Congress, the CIGIE\nVice Chairman conducted an independent evaluation that verified that the policies comport with\nthe letter and spirit of the Inspector General Act. Lastly, OIG employees, even those with deep\nrailroad knowledge, appear to understand that they are no longer able to participate in Amtrak\nmanagement decisions; despite this apparent understanding, however, interviewees still cite\ninstances in which OIG staff continue to participate in Amtrak management decisions, so robust\ntraining is needed to educate OIG staff about what is and is not appropriate.\n\nNotwithstanding this renewed sense of independence, OIG leadership and stakeholders are\nconcerned that Amtrak does not understand what independence truly entails with regard to\nspecific authorities and responsibilities, such as those pertaining to human resource decisions and\naccess to company records. Most stakeholder interviewees stressed the need to educate Amtrak\nstaff about what an independent high-performing OIG does and how it should interact with them.\nEven Board members, most of whom have not had other experience interacting with an IG,\nwould benefit from a clearer understanding of what an \xe2\x80\x9cindependent yet transparent\xe2\x80\x9d relationship\nentails.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cIt was noted in interviews that Amtrak management in the past has sought OIG\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cblessing\xe2\x80\x9d prior\nto implementing key management decisions. Also, OIG conducted routine internal control\nfunctions that Amtrak staff should conduct before paying bills.\n\nGiven the historical culture of limited communication and entrenched ways of doing things, it\nwill take time for both OIG and Amtrak staff to embrace best practice concepts of independence\nand transparency, but it appears that everyone recognizes that it needs to happen\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 23. Continue to have conversations with Amtrak management and the Board about its role\n and resolve issues as they arise (e.g., Amtrak salary guidelines for OIG employees).\n 24. Request an informal CIGIE consultative review to confirm that the policies and\n procedures agreed to by management and the IG are being consistently implemented.\n Doing so could help to ensure that OIG is on track to pass the follow-up review next year.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 25. Use the recently developed relationship policy to educate all stakeholders about the roles\n and responsibilities of OIG and Amtrak. In addition, OIG should develop a practical,\n applied definition of \xe2\x80\x9cindependent yet transparent\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\n 26. Work with Amtrak management and Board to eliminate Amtrak-imposed restrictions on\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s use of funds, hiring actions or other resources that may adversely affect OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\n ability to fulfill its responsibilities. For example, the Panel recommends that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\n relationship with Amtrak Human Resources be reviewed and redefined so that OIG\n recruitment is not stalled or inhibited.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cBenchmark Area #6:\nPOLICY MANAGEMENT AND UPDATES\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG maintains and applies current, accurate and consistent policy across the office; has a\nprocess to monitor changes in the external environment that affect its work practices and a\nmechanism to incorporate those changes into internal policy; and makes all guidance easily\naccessible to staff.\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nThere is widespread recognition within Amtrak OIG of the need for standardized, quality\npolicies and guidance, as well as greater structure and consistency in process. In response, OIG\nleadership hired a well-respected consultant to lead the development of high quality, standard\nAudit policies which are scheduled to be finalized in September 2010. Recognizing the need for\nheightened focus on policy, OIG also established a group last year to make policy development\nand enforcement an organizational priority.\n\nMany interviewees reported that the IG and senior leadership have begun to communicate\nexpectations around the role and value of standard policies. In benchmarked OIGs, draft policy\nis distributed for comment and refinement among managers in each functional area, adding\ncontextual insight about how the policy relates to specific practices. For example, one OIG\nmaintains a top-down/bottom-up process for policy development and updates. An AIG drafts the\nupdate or potential change to a standard work process, distributes it to field offices for review,\ncollects the comments, and drafts the final update for final review approval. The policy is then\ndistributed formally to all affected personnel with a signed instruction from the AIG to update\nthe existing policy manual. However, lack of experience among Amtrak OIG managers and staff\nin standard IG practices makes it difficult to engage them in the process at this time.\n\nSome interviewees mentioned that there is no process to actively monitor the external\nenvironment for potential policy updates, a mechanism that high functioning OIGs have in place.\nThere, responsibility for monitoring and updating relevant policy lies with the functional areas\nand the IG maintains ultimate signature authority for setting policy. Functional leaders develop\ntheir own draft internal guidance, shepherd the review and approval process, and are responsible\nfor scanning the external environment for updates to official guidance.\n\nThe function, roles, and responsibilities of the M&P group is unclear, some interviewees and\nsurvey respondents said. They noted a lack of communication and product coming from M&P,\nand raised concern that staff skills within the group may not be adequate. Benchmarking\nresearch indicates that while many OIGs maintain a policy group or administration function,\nthese units generally serve as a policy repository and facilitator of process. AIGs or other senior\nleaders are responsible for issuing policy updates in their respective areas, once the IG has signed\noff. Content development usually resides with functional experts.\n\n\n 30\n\x0cAmtrak OIG has not historically made its policies readily accessible to all staff via the secure\nsubnet. In benchmarked OIGs, policy updates are formally communicated and made available\non an Intranet site open to all OIG employees. Such practice supports consistency of work\npractices, adherence to common standards, transparency and effective communication.\n\nFinally, some staff appear to be resistant to policy changes. There is a risk that the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nhistorical culture of limited communication may impede the collaborative and constructive\ndialogue critical to policy development and implementation.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nNote that many of the issues mentioned in this section align with observations noted under\n\xe2\x80\x9cQuality and Timely Work Processes\xe2\x80\x9d section.\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 27. Review recently developed policies at all-staff meetings, monthly AIG unit meetings, and\n other internal forums. Recently developed policies have been posted on the secure\n subnet, but not yet read or fully understood by most staff.\n 28. Develop tools and training that demonstrate the practical application of the policies; for\n example, an Agent Handbook for Investigators or step-by-step examples of well-executed\n audits.\n 29. Define the roles and responsibilities of the M&P group.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 30. Clarify the roles of the functional groups (audit, investigations, and evaluation) and the\n M&P and Legal groups in the policy development and update process. In particular,\n there is a need to:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 More clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of the M&P group, and\n ensure that the jobs and skills of staff within the group are aligned with the\n group\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Define the working relationship and work flow between the functional leaders and\n M&P and Legal.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Engage managers and staff leaders in reviews of draft policies.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0cBenchmark Area #7:\nHUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG attracts and retains high-performing employees; has consistent job titles and job\ndescriptions; and has in place training plans and performance management plans that link\nindividual performance to OIG objectives.\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nVirtually all interviews with OIG senior staff, Amtrak management and stakeholders emphasized\nthe belief that the current skill set of many OIG employees do not reflect those required of a\nhigh-performing OIG. Two solutions identified were to hire new/additional managers with\nexperience in the OIG community, and to immediately begin to develop current OIG employees\nso that they can more effectively carry out the responsibilities of the OIG. Interviewees\nconsistently noted that the new IG\xe2\x80\x99s greatest challenge would be the development of staff.\n\nThis section contains observations in the following areas: training/technical skills development,\nrecruitment, leadership development, employee performance management and recognition,\nconsistent job descriptions and titles, mentoring and supervisor-employee relations,\norganizational responsibilities and rotation assignments, and cross-functional teams. This\nsection is robust because the organizational assessment revealed that human capital management\nis one of the Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s most pressing areas of concern: the current skill sets of many Amtrak\nOIG employees are not adequate to perform the high-value, strategic work that the OIG offices\nneeds to initiate to satisfy the needs of its stakeholders and there are not enough managers with\nstrong supervisory skills and subject-matter expertise to train staff to do this work.\n\nTraining/Technical Skills Development\n\nThe leadership team and a majority of stakeholders noted a significant deficiency in essential\nskills critical to performing standard OIG job functions. There is deep concern that the OIG\nwork does not reflect the high quality standards for which the OIG should be accountable.\nInterviewees, both OIG and stakeholders, noted that an organization-wide skill set inventory is\nneeded to determine what specific skills staff do and do not possess, and that a robust training\nand recruiting program needs to be developed to address the skill deficits.\n\nSenior team interviewees noted that the Amtrak OIG is developing and delivering \xe2\x80\x9cAudit 101,\xe2\x80\x9d\nevidence, and report writing training to establish consistent baseline skills in the Audit and I&E\nunits. OIG leadership and external stakeholders stressed the value of basic training for all staff\nto address current skill deficiencies, which include the application of Generally Accepted\nGovernment Accounting Standards (GAGAS), identification of evidence and findings,\nconducting surveys, documentation, and report writing. While these are the rudimentary\ncomponents of effective OIG audit work, many employees are not proficient because these skills\nwere not emphasized in the past.\n\n\n 32\n\x0cIn addition to lacking a baseline of knowledge on audit procedures, interviewees noted that staff\ncould also benefit from training in each functional area to ensure consistent baseline knowledge\nthroughout the organization, as well as training on skill sets required to be successful within the\nunique Amtrak OIG environment. Independent contractors are currently working on this\ninitiative, and positive results from this training will be a welcome enhancement to the\norganization and to employees.\n\nIt was noted that a number of the Investigative staff are likely ineligible for essential Criminal\nInvestigative Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The physical\nand health limitations of many of the Investigative staff are likely to prevent them from\nsuccessfully completing the training. Without this training, they cannot obtain law enforcement\nauthority.\n\nRecruitment\n\nMany OIG leadership and stakeholder interviewees noted that, in addition to offering training to\nthe current OIG staff, the OIG would likely need to recruit experienced staff from the OIG\ncommunity to fill new supervisory positions in each of the units, in order to implement and\nmodel industry standard processes, provide on-the-job training to the recently trained staff, and\nto add needed supervisory skills.\n\nNearly half of OIG interviewees saw salary ranges as a prohibitive factor when recruiting\nexperienced staff, however. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recruitment initiative was, until recently, impeded by\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s salary guidelines which prevented OIG from offering compensation packages\ncommensurate with the experience and training required. Amtrak OIG was unable to establish\nsalaries using comparisons that were appropriate for OIG (i.e., other OIGs, GAO, accounting and\nauditing firms), which has made it difficult to attract highly-qualified candidates. Benchmarked\nOIGs noted that it is critical to attract and appropriately pay high-performing staff. With this\nissue now being addressed, this problem should be somewhat alleviated moving forward.\n\nSeveral interviewees and survey data also suggest that the Amtrak OIG many have a significant\nimpending attrition issue, and that recruitment and succession planning have not received the\nattention they deserve. Given a large number of retirement-eligible employees, an aggressive\nand competitive recruitment plan should be developed in anticipation of probable vacancies.\nNearly one third of survey respondents identified \xe2\x80\x9cpending retirements and succession planning\xe2\x80\x9d\nas one of the biggest challenges for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s future, yet several interviewees said no management\nsuccession plan is in place. OIG has identified and prioritized key vacant positions in an effort to\nfocus recruitment activities on immediate needs.\n\nOnce experienced staff are placed into supervisory and other key positions, many benchmarked\nOIGs noted that they have found it helpful to recruit younger employees into more junior roles.\nHowever, there is a belief among senior OIG staff that the Amtrak OIG has not attracted junior\nstaff because of the work and approach have not been consistent with industry standards, the\nlimited availability of development opportunities, and the fact that its retirement plan differs\nfrom the standard government retirement plan (e.g., it requires longer tenure for vesting). As a\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0cresult, OIG historically has recruited primarily from among Amtrak staff, a practice that creates\nrisks regarding bias and independence, and limits access to new ideas and skills from the broader\nIG community.\n\nAll benchmarked OIGs note that it is important that the OIG clearly communicate expectations\nto all new hires, regardless of whether they are experienced supervisors or junior staff. One\nOIG conducts an orientation session every six months for new employees to ensure clear\nunderstanding of how the organization conducts its work. Another holds comprehensive\norientation sessions for new hires, with presentations and instructions on writing OIG reports and\nother documents. IGs and their AIGs also meet individually with all new employees.\n\nLeadership Development\n\nAs technical skills improve and new hires are brought in, it is critical that the OIG has strong\nleadership at all levels to model appropriate work processes, provide on-the-job training, and\nhold staff accountable. Interviewees noted that recent attempts to define and clarify roles have\nbeen stalled due to a lack of strong leadership and supervisory skills within the units. Senior\nleadership interviews indicate that many managers do not possess management skills, do not\nknow how to evaluate and communicate performance requirements, and do not know how to\nmentor staff.\nSenior leadership, as well as other stakeholders, reported that there is no documented process by\nwhich supervisors review completed work products and provide feedback on the strengths and\nweaknesses. There are currently very few managers who can guide junior staff through an\nanalytical assessment of the process or report. This means that errors tend to be repeated, and is\na missed opportunity for improvement. It also puts the OIG at risk, as unidentified and repeated\nerrors in accuracy and process can lead to considerable skepticism regarding the Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\ncapabilities and could threaten its long-term viability.\n\nAll of the benchmarked OIGs credited management and leadership skills at every level as a key\nelement driving organizational accomplishment. While there were a variety of processes and\nmechanisms utilized, the common thread was willingness and initiative to communicate with\nstaff the mission and goals of the organization, the strategy for achieving those goals, and how\nindividual contributions connect to organizational success. Without engaged managers and\nleaders to drive these conversations, OIG currently will not have the necessary champions to\nmake the transformation efforts now underway successful.\n\nIn many ways, lack of leadership is a deep-seated cultural issue that benchmarked OIGs suggest\ncan be improved by standardizing and communicating expectations, having an effective\nperformance evaluation and talent management processes, tracking and measuring training\ninitiative impacts, and addressing organizational recruiting issues.\n\nEmployee Performance Management and Recognition\n\nHistorically, the Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s individual employee evaluation criteria have not been clearly tied\nto organizational or individual performance, and they lack a consistent performance rating\nscheme. Some staff said the lack of differentiation in the system essentially creates a pass/fail\n\n\n 34\n\x0csystem, and leaves high-performing employees frustrated. There is suspicion among employees\nthat some senior managers rate all staff members \xe2\x80\x9chighly competent\xe2\x80\x9d because any lower rating is\nperceived negatively. Additionally, many managers are not conducting interactive meetings with\nstaff members to discuss their appraisals and work cooperatively to improve on deficiencies.\nThis is a critical missed opportunity for employee development. The development of employee-\nspecific development plans was also identified by several interviewees as a much needed\nimprovement to the current performance management system.\n\nWith regard to compensation, guidelines established by Amtrak have in the past impeded OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nability to reward performance monetarily. One benchmarked OIG reports tremendous value in\nrewarding high-quality work with monetary bonuses and extra paid time off. While the\nmonetary rewards are relatively small, the impact is often immense. Similarly, there is no\ntradition of recognizing exceptional work or leadership through recognition ceremonies or other\nmeans at Amtrak OIG. Public recognition ceremonies are widely referenced by benchmarked\nOIG as having tremendous value for encouraging improvement and doing one\xe2\x80\x99s best work. One\nOIG typically holds awards ceremonies in the main building, and provides a photo opportunity\nwith the department\xe2\x80\x99s top political leader whenever possible.\n\nConsistent Job Descriptions and Titles\n\nThe Amtrak OIG has traditionally used what some have called a \xe2\x80\x9chodgepodge\xe2\x80\x9d of job titles in\nthe various units. These titles do not always reflect the type of work that is being done, and are\nnot consistent across functional units. This situation has led to unclear expectations and\ndisparate job responsibilities. Two OIG interviewees noted that inconsistencies in job titles\nacross units led to difficulty in determining organizational responsibilities. Another interviewee\nnoted that current job descriptions to do not reflect the skill sets required for the position. It is\nalso difficult to create an equitable performance appraisal process without a clear definition and\nunderstanding of minimum competency levels for each position.\n\nIt will be important to review and institute consistent job titles, supervisory levels, and expected\nrange for the number of employees to be supervised throughout the organization. These basic\ncomponents of each supervisory job description can then be customized to address function-\nspecific skills sets, such as the unique requirements of Investigators or Auditors.\n\nThe lack of sufficient numbers of qualified human capital management support staff has\nhindered progress on this front, and has left the organization without clarity of job functions and\nresponsibilities. Having engaged outside assistance for this purpose, we recognize that it is an\narea that OIG is appropriately focused on.\n\nOrganizational Responsibilities and Rotation Assignments\n\nAmtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s stove-piped insular culture has led to \xe2\x80\x9choarding\xe2\x80\x9d top performers. Currently, very\nfew \xe2\x80\x9cstars\xe2\x80\x9d have been identified, causing further resistance to \xe2\x80\x9cgive up\xe2\x80\x9d key talent. This means\nthat high-potential, but under-challenged, staff are likely to stagnate in their offices with little\nleadership direction and no performance plan. Leadership team members have expressed interest\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0cin establishing a system of rotational assignments to build skills across functional areas, and\nbegin to identify staff with high potential.\n\nCross-Functional Teams\n\nAs the Amtrak OIG moves towards the desired future state, it has recognized the value of cross-\nfunctional teams and recently established them to address specific issues (e.g., health care).\nThese teams are common among OIGs with oversight responsibility for funds issued under the\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as this effort requires prevention activities during the\nearly phase and recovery activities once funds are awarded through contracts and grants. These\nOIGs employ a mix of auditors, evaluators, investigators and legal counsel who work together to\nfirst raise awareness and educate about fraud prevention, and later conduct audits. Larger OIGs\nhave established standing cross-functional divisions that respond quickly to high priority issues;\nsmaller ones have created teams only to address specific issues. These varied approaches have\nproved successful in many ways, including producing high-quality end products, enhancing\ncommunication across functional units, and improving working relationships among staff.\nHowever, benchmarking results indicate no best way to employ cross-functional teams.\n\nDespite the potential value of cross-functional teams, recent efforts within Amtrak OIG have not\nmet with great success. Survey results indicate that few staff members think they have been\nsatisfactory (20 percent) or good/very good (12 percent). More than one-third rates their use as\npoor or very poor. Senior leadership concurs that these efforts have not been successful. Given\nthe history of stove-piped operations, multiple internal communication challenges, internal\ncompetitiveness among managers, lack of well-understood and consistent work practices, and a\nculture of non-transparency, OIG does not have a solid foundation for such teams. It does not\nappear that the Amtrak OIG should actively pursue the development of cross-functional\nengagements until larger issues (such as baseline training, job descriptions, and supervisory\nrelationships) are addressed.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n 31. Incorporate the development of a skills inventory into upcoming training delivery. Take\n advantage of upcoming opportunities to determine what employees know (and don\xe2\x80\x99t\n know), as training is launched.\n 32. Streamline the number of job titles, make job titles consistent across functional units, and\n develop standardized position descriptions that accurately reflect job requirements. For\n example, in Investigations, document and inform staff of the requisite training associated\n with law enforcement positions.\n 33. As new training initiatives are implemented, establish a tracking system to monitor\n employee needs and completion of coursework.\n 34. Continue to engage those employees who have participated in the benchmarked OIG\n interviews and give them ownership of process improvement ideas that have resulted\n from those interviews.\n\n\n 36\n\x0cLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 35. Conduct a comprehensive human capital needs assessment and develop a human capital\n plan. Areas of focus should include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Competitive market salary guidelines;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recruitment strategies;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Skills inventory development;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Position description development;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Performance management;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recognition and reward programs;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership training and development; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Retention strategies\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Succession planning\n\n\n 36. Establish processes for creating cross-functional teams and ultimately build them into its\n work planning process. This should take place only after improvements are made to\n human capital management, internal communication, work prioritization processes, and\n as working relationships become more effective within the office. As individual projects\n are planned and initiated, OIG should consider whether a cross-functional approach is\n warranted on a case-by-case basis.\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\x0cBenchmark Area #8:\nPERFORMANCE MEASURES\n\n\nFuture State\n\nAmtrak OIG has performance metrics that reflect the requirements of the Inspector General Act,\nmeet the expectations of GAO and Congress, reflect the value of OIG work to Amtrak; and align\nwith OIG strategic goals. These metrics are integrated into OIG\xe2\x80\x99s operating and performance\nmanagement systems.\n\n\nObservations and Discussion\n\nAmtrak leadership and benchmarked IGs indicated that effective performance measurement is an\narea that deserves continued attention and improvement. The latter recognize the importance of\nquantitative measures, yet note that some of the most meaningful measures are qualitative or\nsubjective, such as agency views about how OIG added value to the agency or agency feedback\non the quality of OIG recommendations. It can, however, be difficult to define and establish\nmetrics for such measures.\n\nAmtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Plan 2010-2014 has six goals, desired outcomes for each goal, and many\n(indeed, too many) quantifiable and non-quantifiable measures. Particularly noteworthy is the\ndeliberate link between OIG and Amtrak performance. For example, goals 1-5 list more than 50\noutcomes that reflect potential improvements and impact on Amtrak operations. This list could\neffectively serve as a starting point for a conversation with the Amtrak Board and management\nabout how OIG can most effectively contribute to organization-wide improvement. Goal 6\nincludes 23 measures classified as outputs and 27 measures classified as outcome measures.\nThough some are not directly measurable (\xe2\x80\x9cperformance reviews are honest and effective\xe2\x80\x9d) and\nothers misclassified (\xe2\x80\x9cOIG employees are consistently high performers\xe2\x80\x9d is not an outcome), the\nlist provides an excellent starting point for identifying the most critical measures related to\ninternal OIG operations.\n\nOIG leaders and staff recognize the importance of establishing performance metrics that reflect\nthe value of their work. The majority interviewed suggested that OIG consider traditional\nquantitative measures (e.g. potential dollar savings from audit recommendations), additional\noutput measures reflecting work done to prevent or avoid waste/fraud/abuse (e.g. number of\nAmtrak staff trained in fraud detection), and qualitative measures of impact (e.g. changes in\nstakeholder opinion surveys regarding the effectiveness of OIG). These suggestions may not be\ndirectly measurable (except through opinion surveys), but they indicate receptivity to new ways\nof thinking about OIG impact and how to measure it.\n\nConsistent with benchmarked organizations, OIG leadership and staff also recognize the need to\nconsider Amtrak perspectives as part of performance measurement. Several survey respondents\nsuggested that OIG solicit stakeholder feedback to assess the process and quality of OIG\nrecommendations.\n\n\n 38\n\x0cNotably absent is a system to track standard OIG performance measures and regularly monitor\nkey measures of progress toward strategic plan goals. The plan sets the stage for moving OIG\nforward and the recommendations in this report identify managerial and operational\nimprovements required to drive change. It will take time to design and effectively implement,\nbut a performance measurement system is critical not only to determine whether goals are\naccomplished but also to support expectations for accountability and transparency.\n\nIt should be noted that, while everyone recognizes the need and value of performance measures,\nthe OIG has a culture of limited accountability, at both the organizational and employee level.\nThe most powerful organizational performance measures are usually incorporated into individual\nperformance management systems. However, since OIG staff are not accustomed to having\ndeadlines, meeting quality standards, and being held accountable for delivery of high-quality,\ntimely work, it will take time to develop and implement accountability at the individual or\norganizational level. Performance measures need to be established and tracked, yet some\nemployees may lack the motivation or skills to work up to the new measurements.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nQuick Wins:\n\n 37. Establish a process to track, on at least a quarterly basis, the metrics that all OIGs must\n report.\n 38. Start the process of engaging Board members and Amtrak leadership in a discussion\n about how to measure value of OIG work in a meaningful way; this can also serve to\n educate them about the type of work that the office will be doing and how interactions\n should occur.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n\n 39. Engage the Amtrak Board and senior leadership in an ongoing dialogue about how the\n OIG can effectively measure the value and impact of its work, and cooperatively identify\n qualitative and quantitative performance measures. These measures should be used along\n with standard OIG measures to capture the value of the work performed.\n\n 40. Identify the most critical managerial and operational performance objectives and track\n their achievement using key performance measures. This should include development\n and implementation of a performance tracking system for key measures related to\n accomplishment of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s goals, including outcome and output measures. These\n measures should be monitored and discussed by senior management on a regular basis,\n and used as a tool for setting work priorities and making resource allocation decisions.\n OIG also should consider defining measures that support its change initiative.\n\n 41. Incorporate key organizational performance measures into its individual performance\n management system.\n\n\n 39\n\x0cThis Page Left Intentionally Blank\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\x0c A PATH FORWARD\n\nThe National Academy of Public Administration appreciates the opportunity to work with the\nleadership of Amtrak OIG on this important effort to reinvigorate and modernize its operations.\nGiven the progress made to date, as well as OIG\xe2\x80\x99s clear desire to make further progress and build\nsupport among the organization\xe2\x80\x99s stakeholders and peer community, the Panel believes that OIG\ncan and will succeed in this endeavor.\n\nThe Panel has made 41 recommendations for OIG leadership, which are all listed throughout the\nreport and below. In so doing, we recognize that all these recommendations cannot all be\nundertaken simultaneously. Progress in some areas will depend on other changes, while some\nchanges are more time critical. The Project Team looks forward to discussing these\nrecommendations in greater depth with OIG leadership, and to developing roadmaps for the\npriority recommendations as part of Phase Two of the project.\n\nInternal Communications\n\nQuick Wins:\n 1. Institute regular top-down communication practices, including a monthly email to all\n staff that highlights on-going work, employee achievements, and OIG successes.\n 2. Conduct regularly scheduled (at least monthly) AIG unit meetings to discuss new work\n and progress on current work, emerging issues, current events, etc. The IG and/or\n Deputy IG should attend these meetings on a rotating basis. In addition, the IG/Deputy\n should attend meetings at which the AIG and his/her staff will be making critical go/no-\n go decisions regarding ongoing work, so that staff recognizes such milestones are\n important and that leadership is engaged in the newly developed Audit processes.\n 3. Hold at least two all-staff meetings per year that include an opportunity for staff to make\n presentations, ask questions of leadership, and recognize high-performing employees.\n 4. Develop mechanisms to allow OIG staff to give feedback to management.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 5. Make more effective use of technology and face-to-face meetings to strengthen internal\n communications and build a culture of transparency and information sharing. It should\n explore the following mechanisms to do so:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Create and actively populate an Intranet site (secure subnet) with report and\n process information that will enable more productive and efficient workflow.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Contribute to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s monthly internal publications to communicate about OIG\n work efforts and celebrate staff successes and milestones.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop visual dashboards and representations of ongoing work to communicate\n the status of organizational activities.\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Have senior leadership conduct a number of field visits and divisional staff\n meetings annually.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Adhere to a regular schedule of senior staff meetings and office-wide meetings,\n utilizing video conferencing capability if possible.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Build a measure regarding internal communication and information sharing into\n employee accountability plans.\n\nExternal Communications\n\nQuick Wins:\n 6. Develop a practical, \xe2\x80\x9capplied\xe2\x80\x9d definition of independence and a succinct statement of the\n benefits and value of an independent OIG for use with the OIG staff, Amtrak Board of\n Directors, and Amtrak Senior Management. This would serve to clarify the nature of\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work and help build support for its transformation.\n 7. Once new work processes are established this fall, OIG leadership should meet with both\n Amtrak and Congressional stakeholders to brief them on the new processes, and let them\n know how and when each of them can expect to receive updates, be part of an official\n comment period, and/or receive information and reports.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 8. Establish standard procedures for reporting to external stakeholders. It should carefully\n develop a manageable list and schedule of regular updates (both oral and written),\n examples of which may include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop a standard reporting instrument and structure for congressional\n stakeholders.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Author a monthly column in the Amtrak newsletter. (This does not have to be\n authored by the IG each month; AIGs, project leaders and other staff could\n contribute.)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide regular written updates to the Amtrak Board to supplement meeting\n presentations; these could also be sent to management and Congress to promote\n transparency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish protocols for communicating with the Board, management and\n congressional staff, utilizing key technology resources.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Significantly improve the OIG website to create a user-friendly and informative\n tool for communicating about OIG activities and results.\n\n 9. Develop and conduct \xe2\x80\x9cOIG 101\xe2\x80\x9d training sessions. OIG and Amtrak staff, some\n members of Amtrak senior management, and the Board of Directors could all benefit\n from a practical presentation that explains what it means to interact with an independent\n OIG, including examples of \xe2\x80\x9cgood\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cbad\xe2\x80\x9d interactions.\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\x0cWork Planning and Prioritization\n\nQuick Wins:\n 10. Create a means to identify and close out all low-priority OIG work by the end of this\n fiscal year. One approach would be to require all staff to submit to their AIG an inventory\n of all open projects under their purview, including the date the project was initiated, the\n current status, the staff assigned to the project and estimated staff time required to\n complete the work, and the projected completion date. If the projected completion date is\n after October 1, 2010, the project lead should provide a written justification as to why the\n work should not be terminated.\n 11. Discuss areas of perceived risk with the Amtrak Board and management, with the goal of\n identifying issues to be addressed in the annual OIG work plan for the coming fiscal year.\n 12. Hold an extended (potentially offsite) meeting of senior staff from headquarters and field\n offices, AIGs, and senior OIG leadership to discuss and finalize the upcoming year\xe2\x80\x99s\n priorities.\n 13. Institute a twice-yearly meeting among all AIGs and Amtrak senior team members to\n discuss any areas of concern regarding OIG/Amtrak interaction, as well as perceived or\n emerging risks to the corporation.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 14. Develop a comprehensive work prioritization plan, including interim operational\n milestones and a communications plan, that will launch in Fall 2011. The plan should\n result from a process that is owned by the senior management team, includes OIG staff\n and stakeholder input, and applies risk factors and criteria to prioritize work. It will also\n be important to develop and implement a communications strategy for the work plan that\n is undertaken in fall 2010. Staff should understand that the formal work prioritization\n process will be launched in fall 2011, but interim steps are being undertaken to ensure\n continued progress. Ultimately, the annual work plan must be clearly aligned with the\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Plan and Human Capital Plan.\n\nQuality and Timely Work Processes\n\nQuick Wins:\n 15. Ensure that productive, engaging training on the newly developed policies and\n procedures for Audit and I&E occurs this fall.\n 16. Require and provide basic written instruction to all OIG employees to utilize the\n appropriate electronic project management system, so that data can be documented and\n project progress can be assessed.\n 17. After training is completed, identify a number of audits or other work that can be\n completed within a relatively short time period (e.g., 120 days). This work can provide\n indicators of whether employees understand and are adhering to the new policies; it will\n also provide the benefit of being able to provide finished work products to share with\n Amtrak, the Hill and OIG staff in the relatively near term.\n\n\n 43\n\x0c 18. Find any and all opportunities to celebrate products of the improved work processes and\n training. Recognize strong employees and report success. Provide examples of \xe2\x80\x9cgood\n reports\xe2\x80\x9d and models of behavior going forward.\n 19. For Investigators, establish a deadline by which they must meet Attorney General\n Guidelines to carry firearms and carry out law enforcement actions, and create a plan of\n action for those who are unable to meet the required standards.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 20. Continue to place priority on developing internal policy and guidance, and pay special\n attention to defining how Yellow Book standards will apply to audits and evaluations.\n Many of the basic principles apply to both types of work. Efforts should also continue to\n codify internal guidance on investigative practices. This work deserves priority attention,\n as the positive improvement of the office depends heavily upon having these solid\n foundations of policy and guidance.\n\n 21. Ensure compliance with internal policy and guidance once they are developed. Specific\n approaches include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Make the guidance and tools easily accessible. Devote resources to host and\n maintain policies and procedures on an OIG Intranet site, with access open to all\n OIG staff for easy reference.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Require that all staff members use TeamMate and AIMS in accordance with the\n underlying policy\xe2\x80\x99s intended goals. Centrally manage customization and training\n to ensure a unified approach.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop and execute a training plan for staff in basic office processes and\n practices. Conduct the training shortly after finalizing the guidance to expedite\n the transition to a consistent work approach.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Monitor application of standards and hold managers and staff accountable for\n following the policies and procedures on a regular basis, as well as in annual\n performance reviews. Employ a routine, \xe2\x80\x9cdashboard-type\xe2\x80\x9d progress report\n against work plans, and a consistent quality assurance review process to reinforce\n adherence to standards in methods and final products.\n\n 22. Consider whether field offices should be relocated, eliminated or staffed differently, in\n light of new OIG work flows, supervisory relationships, and project staffing. Ensure that\n each OIG field office can operate cost-effectively: that it has adequate work to perform;\n its location is consistent with the work that OIG needs to be performed; it has a critical\n mass of employees to perform the necessary work; and it has a supervisor who has an\n appropriate number of employees to manage, as well as the experience and skill set to\n provide employees with the necessary guidance and supervision. In some cases, field\n offices may need to be consolidated and/or supervisors may have to be hired.\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\x0cIndependence\n\nQuick Wins:\n 23. Continue to have conversations with Amtrak management and the Board about its role\n and resolve issues as they arise (e.g., Amtrak salary guidelines for OIG employees).\n 24. Request an informal CIGIE consultative review to confirm that the policies and\n procedures agreed to by management and the IG are being consistently implemented.\n Doing so could help to ensure that OIG is on track to pass the follow-up review next year.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 25. Use the recently developed relationship policy to educate all stakeholders about the roles\n and responsibilities of OIG and Amtrak. In addition, OIG should develop a practical,\n applied definition of \xe2\x80\x9cindependent yet transparent\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\n 26. Work with Amtrak management and Board to eliminate Amtrak-imposed restrictions on\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s use of funds, hiring actions or other resources that may adversely affect OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\n ability to fulfill its responsibilities. For example, the Panel recommends that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\n relationship with Amtrak Human Resources be reviewed and redefined so that OIG\n recruitment is not stalled or inhibited.\n\nPolicy Management and Updates\n\nQuick Wins:\n 27. Review recently developed policies at all-staff meetings, monthly AIG unit meetings, and\n other internal forums. Recently developed policies have been posted on the secure\n subnet, but not yet read or fully understood by most staff.\n 28. Develop tools and training that demonstrate the practical application of the policies; for\n example, an Agent Handbook for Investigators or step-by-step examples of well-executed\n audits.\n 29. Define the roles and responsibilities of the M&P group\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 30. Clarify the roles of the functional groups (audit, investigations, and evaluation) and the\n M&P and Legal groups in the policy development and update process. In particular,\n there is a need to:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 More clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of the M&P group, and\n ensure that the jobs and skills of staff within the group are aligned with the\n group\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Define the working relationship and work flow between the functional leaders and\n M&P and Legal.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Engage managers and staff leaders in reviews of draft policies.\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\x0cHuman Capital Management\n\nQuick Wins:\n 31. Incorporate the development of a skills inventory into upcoming training delivery. Take\n advantage of upcoming opportunities to determine what employees know (and don\xe2\x80\x99t\n know), as training is launched.\n 32. Streamline the number of job titles, make job titles consistent across functional units, and\n develop standardized position descriptions that accurately reflect job requirements. For\n example, in Investigations, document and inform staff of the requisite training associated\n with law enforcement positions.\n 33. As new training initiatives are implemented, establish a tracking system to monitor\n employee needs and completion of coursework.\n 34. Continue to engage those employees who have participated in the benchmarked OIG\n interviews and give them ownership of process improvement ideas that have resulted\n from those interviews.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 35. Conduct a comprehensive human capital needs assessment and develop a human capital\n plan. Areas of focus should include the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Competitive market salary guidelines;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recruitment strategies;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Skills inventory development;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Position description development;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Performance management;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recognition and reward programs;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership training and development; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Retention strategies\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Succession planning\n 36. Establish processes for creating cross-functional teams and ultimately build them into its\n work planning process. This should take place only after improvements are made to\n human capital management, internal communication, work prioritization processes, and\n as working relationships become more effective within the office. As individual projects\n are planned and initiated, OIG should consider whether a cross-functional approach is\n warranted on a case-by-case basis.\n\nPerformance Measures\n\nQuick Wins:\n 37. Establish a process to track, on at least a quarterly basis, the metrics that all OIGs must\n report.\n 38. Start the process of engaging Board members and Amtrak leadership in a discussion\n about how to measure value of OIG work in a meaningful way; this can also serve to\n\n\n 46\n\x0c educate them about the type of work that the office will be doing and how interactions\n should occur.\n\nLonger Term Recommendations:\n 39. Engage the Amtrak Board and senior leadership in an ongoing dialogue about how the\n OIG can effectively measure the value and impact of its work, and cooperatively identify\n qualitative and quantitative performance measures. These measures should be used along\n with standard OIG measures to capture the value of the work performed.\n\n 40. Identify the most critical managerial and operational performance objectives and track\n their achievement using key performance measures. This should include development\n and implementation of a performance tracking system for key measures related to\n accomplishment of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s goals, including outcome and output measures. These\n measures should be monitored and discussed by senior management on a regular basis,\n and used as a tool for setting work priorities and making resource allocation decisions.\n OIG also should consider defining measures that support its change initiative.\n\n 41. Incorporate key organizational performance measures into its individual performance\n management system.\n\n\n\n\n 47\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n\n Appendix A\n Content Analysis\n OIG Senior Staff Interviews\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe Academy Study Team conducted 17 one-on-one interviews with the OIG Executive team\nand other suggested OIG staff members, notably those who participated in the development of\nthe FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. The purpose of senior staff interviews was to obtain\nperspectives regarding OIG key internal functions, work processes and policies, organizational\nstructure, communication processes, and organizational culture and climate. All interviewees\nwere assured that comments would not be attributable to any particular individual.\n\nThis report contains a summary analysis of the comments that were made by the Amtrak OIG\nsenior staff members. The interviews were guided by a framework of questions that addressed\nthree areas:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG core strengths;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Areas in need of improvement; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Service/value to stakeholders.\n\nThe same framework was used in this report to aggregate the interviewees\xe2\x80\x99 comments.\n\nSUMMARY\n\nAmtrak OIG has a group of dedicated staff who are committed to improving the quality of their\nwork. Interviewees expressed confidence that, under the new OIG leadership, the OIG is\nheading in the right direction; some also expressed frustration that staff received minimal\ncommunication as to what the new direction will entail. Interviewees pointed out that, in order\nto improve the quality of OIG work, staff need to be trained on the skills and knowledge-set\nrequired to conduct the higher-value work that will achieve greater impact. Almost all\ninterviewees agreed that the OIG should focus its work on \xe2\x80\x9cbig picture\xe2\x80\x9d or strategic issues\naffecting Amtrak, and emphasized the desire for more structured work processes that follow\nprofessional standards. Many interviewees referenced a highly \xe2\x80\x9cstove-piped\xe2\x80\x9d organization with\nminimal teamwork, suggesting a deep need for more effective internal communications.\nIndependence was a concern, and interviewees recognized the danger of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s past\nparticipation in Amtrak management\xe2\x80\x99s decision-making process. Interviewees agreed that it is\ncritical that the IG develop well-defined processes and roles and responsibilities, and also build\npositive stakeholder relationships.\n\nCORE STRENGTHS OF THE OIG\n\nAt the beginning of the interviews, members of the senior staff were asked to focus on the\npositive attributes of the organization and to identify the core strengths of OIG. \xe2\x80\x9cPeople\xe2\x80\x9d and\n\xe2\x80\x9cthe new leadership\xe2\x80\x9d emerged as the main themes. However, only a few interviewees offered\nsubstantive elaborations on their answers.\n\n\n\n A-1\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nPeople\n\nThe people within OIG were identified as the biggest asset of the organization by almost all of\nthe interviewees. Most believe that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG is fortunate to have a dedicated team of professionals who have a deep knowledge\n of railroad operations and are loyal to both Amtrak and the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Most staff would be receptive to receiving training..\n\nNew Leadership\n\nA strong majority of interviewees identified the new leadership as a core strength. People agreed\nthat strong, unified senior leadership is critical for the organization\xe2\x80\x99s success. Illustrative\nresponses included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The new leadership has demonstrated the ability to make the office productive, and they are\n in the process of improving the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s relationships with Amtrak and Congress. The OIG is\n on the right track.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The reorganization (the establishment of the Deputy IG position and the separation of the\n Investigations group and the Legal group) has been generally well-received by the OIG\n staff.\n\nWHAT\xe2\x80\x99S NOT WORKING\n\nWhen asked about needed areas for improvement within the OIG, interviewees provided a wide\nrange of responses. Major themes that emerged were focused on the following areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Culture and climate\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Types of work initiated and conducted\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Standardization of work processes\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Human capital management\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Communication\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strategic planning\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG independence\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Organizational structure\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership\n\nCulture and Climate\n\nCultural issues were mentioned by almost every interviewee. Example responses included:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The organizational culture of the OIG has been deeply \xe2\x80\x9cstove-piped.\xe2\x80\x9d\n o There were very few relationships among the Audit, Investigations, and I&E groups\n at either headquarter or field levels.\n o There has been - and continues to be - a \xe2\x80\x9cturf-war\xe2\x80\x9d dynamic in the office; senior\n managers compete for resources and have not been encouraged to work together.\n\n\n\n A-2\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n o Cross-functional teams might be a good way to build cooperation and teamwork in\n the organization. OIG has used some cross-functional teams in the past (e.g., the\n health care unit), but it was apparent that staff did not have strong communication\n even when they were on the same team.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff tended to operate under a veil of secrecy and did not want to share information\n with Amtrak. OIG staff did not understand the difference between being transparent and\n independent.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There continues to be resistance to changes in the organization. People do not know what\n the senior leadership team\xe2\x80\x99s plan is for the OIG, and are thus very concerned with their\n job security.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Due to a lack of standard processes and deadlines, managers did not hold staff\n accountable for their work; on the other hand, staff was not eager to be held accountable.\n\nType of Work\n\nA majority of interviewees pointed out that the types of issues being audited, inspected, and\ninvestigated needed to be redefined in order to focus on higher-level issues affecting Amtrak.\nExamples included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit:\n o OIG has been performing internal audit/control functions for Amtrak by conducting\n station audits, railroad audits, and vendor audits. The company should not rely on the\n OIG to provide these internal control functions, and they should be fully transitioned\n to Amtrak. The OIG audit group would then be able to conduct performance audits\n (vs. compliance audits) that will prove more impactful to Amtrak.\n o There has been no coordinated, centralized process or criteria for identifying\n appropriate audits; the decision to initiate an audit has historically been made in a\n bottoms-up manner and was not centralized or coordinated to ensure that the right\n issues were being examined. The OIG needs to develop an annual audit plan that will\n identify priorities for the coming year, yet maintains the flexibility to respond to\n urgent needs on a real-time basis.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Investigations:\n o A large number of investigative cases were initiated at an individual level, and did not\n address more impactful, big-picture fraud.\n o There have been no consistent standards and procedures established for opening (or\n closing) investigative cases.\n o The hotline has been the primary source to receive fraud complaints, but it has not\n been adequately staffed so that tips could be appropriately addressed.\n o The Investigations group should be more proactive in order to identify impactful, big-\n picture company fraud. Once Investigators are trained on how to identify fraud, they\n could in turn provide the fraud awareness training to Amtrak employees, so that\n Amtrak employees can identify fraud indicators.\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nWork Processes\n\nA need for improvement in work processes was another frequent response. Interviewees noted\nthat the processes that support the work of the functional units needed to be better defined so that\nresources can be properly aligned and final reports can be standardized at a consistent and high\nlevel of quality. A desire for more structured processes and quality control clearly emerged. Key\nissues related to work processes included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The audit process has not complied with professional standards (e.g., Yellow Book). Audits\n should be completed in a timely manner (e.g., have established deadlines) and should be\n fact-based (e.g., have a set of quality control criteria that need to be met).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Investigation group has not followed standard procedures (e.g., they would conduct\n interviews without appropriate warnings to Amtrak employees). Investigators need to\n follow the Quality Standards for Investigations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The I&E group has produced some high-quality products, but these reports also did not\n follow consistent standards, primarily because the staff in the group were not familiar with\n what standards needed to be followed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There has not been a process to implement or track OIG recommendations. People are\n hopeful that the new Amtrak audit liaison will help track and follow-up on OIG findings\n and recommendations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Technological tools such as TeamMate for auditors and AIMS for investigators are not\n widely used by OIG staff. Staff should use the system so that progress can be tracked.\n\nHuman Capital\n\nHuman Capital was mentioned by most of the senior staff interviewed. Typical comments are\nprovided below:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Knowledge, skills, and training issues.\n o In the Audit group, staff was not trained as to the type of audits that should be\n initiated, as well as the standards that should be followed throughout the auditing\n process. Everyone in the audit group (including senior directors) has been asked to\n undergo basic audit training.\n o The majority of the investigation staff do not have law enforcement authority, and it\n is important that they receive the basic federal training to become federal\n investigators. However, some people may not be able to take or pass the training due\n to physical limitations.\n o It is important to develop expertise in different areas. For example, it has become\n increasingly important for investigators to receive specialized training in accounting,\n auditing, procurement, and white-color crime.\n o The OIG has a number of staff members with highly-specialized knowledge about the\n railroads (the I&E group in particular), and sometimes it has been difficult for these\n specialists to take on the jobs outside their areas of expertise. While this railroad\n expertise is valued, the OIG should also develop generalists with strong audit and\n investigative skills.\n\n\n\n A-4\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n o OIG staff need to be trained to develop stronger writing, editing, and communication\n skills\n o The organization is at risk of losing valuable institutional knowledge about railroad\n operations within the next few years due to impending retirements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Administrative challenges.\n o OIG has a large number of senior employees who are nearing retirement, but there is\n not a succession plan in place.\n o OIG has not effectively managed its workforce development function.\n o There are currently too many job titles and no standardized job descriptions, as well\n as an unclear supervisory chain or career progression plans.\n o Employee evaluations have historically been rarely tied to employee performance.\n OIG had an across-the-board salary increase in the past several years, and there was\n no differentiation for or recognition of high-performing employees.\n\nCommunication\n\nCommunication practices were identified as a priority area for the OIG. Most of the interviewees\nrecognized the importance of improving both internal and external communications.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Communication\n o There was limited top-down communication, so rumors spread quickly within the\n organization. There has not been a structured process by which OIG senior leadership\n routinely shared information with staff members.\n o Many interviewees mentioned that it has been helpful to have the all-hands meeting,\n the all-staff memo from the leadership, the weekly senior leadership team meeting,\n etc. Continued communication \xe2\x80\x93 both formal and informal \xe2\x80\x93 among all levels of the\n organization would be valued.\n o It is necessary to explore additional ways to build internal communications. However,\n people also realized that simply having these channels in place is not sufficient to\n ensure effective communication.\n o There was very limited communication among the Audit, I&E, and Investigations\n groups; communications within the groups and between field offices has been limited,\n as well.\n o There are minimal automated systems, and those that exist are not well used by OIG\n staff.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 External Communication\n o OIG staff need to better communicate with Amtrak employees about the information\n needed and the work being conducted by the OIG, without divulging sensitive\n information. There needs to be more transparency between OIG and Amtrak in order\n to build trust.\n o The website is an important tool for OIG external communication, but the current\n OIG website is not strong.\n o OIG leadership is spending time up on the Hill and is improving these relationships.\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nStrategic Plan\n\nSome senior staff offered comments on the development of the new OIG strategic plan.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Given the time constraints, the strategic plan is a good product. However, there was not a\n strong, underlying development process in place that could be replicated.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The strategic plan was developed by a group of mid-level staff members, and the senior\n team was not much involved in the development process.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG did not perform its own risk assessments before developing the plan.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There was only very limited follow-up discussion on the strategic plan within the\n organization. People likely do not understand how their work, on a day-to-day basis,\n relates to the strategic plan.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG needs to develop annual work plans and performance plans that are linked to the\n strategic plan.\n\nIndependence of the OIG\n\nDuring the interviews, many concerns were raised related to the OIG independence issues.\nInterviewees noted that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG was too involved in the management decisions of Amtrak and participated in the\n company\xe2\x80\x99s decision making process.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conflicts of interest may arise when the OIG hires former Amtrak employees. OIG has a\n number of people (particularly in the I&E group) who used to work at Amtrak.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG used to completely rely on Amtrak for funding.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG relies on the company for HR management and parts of its IT system, which has\n presented some issues relating to timely access of new hires to emails and delays in hiring.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Education about the role of the OIG and boundaries that may or may not be crossed would\n he helpful for both OIG and Amtrak staff.\n\nOrganizational Structure\n\nThe organizational structure of the OIG was mentioned by a few interviewees. Comments\nincluded:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is difficult to develop and maintain consistent processes and communication, as there are\n a number of field offices with minimal staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a lack of clarity on the responsibilities of the Management and Policy (M&P)\n group, and the M&P group is comprised of people whose skills are not consistent with the\n needed M&P functions.\n\nLeadership\n\nA few interviewees offered comments on leadership issues.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff were performing the work that past leadership directed them to do, so past\n problems evolved from leadership\xe2\x80\x99s direction (at both the senior level and mid-level) and\n was not necessarily the result of weak staff.\n\n\n A-6\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The new OIG senior leadership is valued. However, broad-based leadership training,\n including communication skills, would be helpful for certain members of the current\n leadership team.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Mid-level leadership needs to share staff and resources and not \xe2\x80\x9choard\xe2\x80\x9d high-performing\n employees.\n\nHow Difficult Would These Changes Be?\n\nIn general, people believe that some of these changes would be relatively easy to make, given the\ncommitment of the leadership. .\n\nThat being said, most senior staff interviewed agreed that cultural and communication changes\nwould be the biggest challenge. It would take a time for OIG staff to embrace the new type of\nwork that the OIG needs to do, and to build trust and transparency with its stakeholders. It is\nbelieved that, while most staff will welcome the opportunity to do high-quality OIG work, some\nstaff may be resistant to the change.\n\nSERVICE/VALUE TO STAKEHOLDERS\n\nOne of the strongest concerns that came out during the interviews was the need to improve\nrelationships between the OIG and external stakeholders. One of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s goals in the new\nstrategic plan is to establish collaborative relationships and regular communications with Amtrak\nmanagement, the Amtrak Board of Directors, Congress, and other stakeholders. Most noted that\nthey believe relationships have been greatly enhanced since the new leadership came on board,\nbut there is still room for improvement.\n\nAmtrak\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The current IG is working hard to establish a good relationship with Amtrak management,\n and is having regular meetings with the Amtrak CEO.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The new relationship document is a good start toward building a cooperative relationship\n between Amtrak and the OIG. However, both OIG staff and Amtrak management need to\n have an ever more clear understanding of the OIG role, how they will interact with one\n another, and how the IG will operate his office going forward.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak management is pleased that the IG office wants to take on higher-value work that\n would generate significant impacts on Amtrak operations.\n\nAmtrak Board of Directors\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is believed that the Amtrak Board thinks that OIG staff used to go beyond the scope of an\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s roles and responsibilities, and was too involved with day-to-day Amtrak\n management.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is believed that the relationship, trust and communication between OIG and the Board are\n improving, while independence is being maintained.\n\n\n\n\n A-7\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nCongress\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The interactions between Congress and the OIG used to be very limited.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Congress was concerned with the independence of the IG office, and required Amtrak to\n develop proper procedures with the OIG to ensure the independence of the IG office.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a perceived value in having the IG and Deputy IG develop strong relationships on\n the Hill.\n\nThe IG Community\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak OIG has been disconnected from the IG community and is not familiar with\n industry \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is perceived that the Amtrak OIG does not a good reputation in the IG community, so\n OIG morale is low.\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n\n OIG Senior Management Team and Key Senior Staff Interviewed\n\n\nTed Alves Inspector General\nColin Carriere Counsel to Inspector General\nBret Coulson AIG, Management & Policy\nCalvin Evans AIG, Inspections &Evaluations\nJerry Gideon Senior Director, Management & Policy\nJohn Grimes Chief Inspector\nTom Howard Deputy Inspector General\nAlan Klein Senior Director, Audits\nDan Krueger Senior Director, Audits\nKatherine Moore Audit Project Supervisor\nPhil Ong Director, I&E\nJoe O\xe2\x80\x99Rourke Regional Special Agent-in-Charge\nNick Pinto Acting AIG, Audits\nKathleen Ranowski Deputy Counsel\nAdrienne Rish AIG, Investigations\nSue Ryan Principal Officer/HCM\nCatherine Smith Chief, Inspections &Evaluations\n\n\n\n\n A-9\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\n Appendix B\n Content Analysis\n OIG Stakeholder Interviews\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe summary offered below is drawn from a content analysis performed on the detailed notes\ncaptured in 22 interviews with key Amtrak OIG stakeholders.\n\nThe interviews focused on the following areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Their perceived value and impact of OIG;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Things they need (gaps) or need more of from OIG;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Approaches for productive engagement of stakeholders by the OIG;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Independence of the OIG; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Measuring OIG performance.\n\nWhile not every interviewee was asked every question (due to lack of relevancy), all five themes\nwere covered in each interview.\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe stakeholder interviewees were very consistent in their responses to certain questions, such as\nhow they viewed OIG, the nature of weaknesses within the OIG, and suggested performance\nmeasures. Almost everyone had an optimistic view of the direction in which Amtrak OIG is\ncurrently moving, given the new leadership. Interviewees acknowledged a need for change and\nspecifically a need for improved levels of OIG independence. A more structured, consistent\napproach to conducting and communicating OIG activities was very highly prioritized by\ninterviewees. The value of an Amtrak OIG as an entity distinctly separate from the Department\nof Transportation (DOT) IG was not completely clear to all interviewees, and stakeholders are\nnot certain that the OIG has the skills sets needed to complete all necessary facets of the Amtrak\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s work.\n\nVALUE AND IMPACT OF THE OIG\n\nInterviewees were asked what value OIG brings to their organizations, and the impact of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nwork. Respondents greatly value the external, independent view OIG offers, noting that it adds\nobjectivity and validation not otherwise available. The OIG has also offered insight into best\npractices, which has been highly valued by Amtrak staff. Discussion about the value of the OIG\nidentified examples of deficiencies, as well as examples of activities that the interviewees would\nlike to see increased. The following reflects the responses to specific questions about OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nvalue to stakeholders.\n\n\n\n\n B-1\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\nImpact of the OIG\n\nWhen asked \xe2\x80\x9cwhat is the impact of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work on your organization?\xe2\x80\x9d interviewees stressed the\nimportance of independence, and the need for the OIG to detect big picture trends and offer a\nbroader perspective. Interviewees tended to approach the question from one of two perspectives:\nhow an OIG can potentially offer value and impact in general; and/or how the current Amtrak\nOIG provides value. Representative responses included:\n\nGeneral Value of an OIG Function\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identifying emerging issues before they develop into real problems.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivering fact-based reports that do not reflect personal bias.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Connecting the dots between units, since the OIG has the perspective to detect high-level\n trends.\n\nAmtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Value\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG was able to recommend ways to ensure the most efficient use of federal funds.\n o For example, suggesting Amtrak apply to FRA for waivers so that they would not\n lose stimulus funding that needed to be spent within a specific timeframe.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak staff appreciates that the OIG has helped them identify and translate best\n practices in managing infrastructure assets.\n o For example, OIG went to France and Spain and developed a report comparing\n Amtrak with other high speed rail operations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Particular reports produced by the audit department have provided useful, straightforward\n assessments of Amtrak operations (while others have not).\n\nGAPS AND NEEDS\n\nWhen interviewees were asked \xe2\x80\x9cwhat do you need more of from the OIG\xe2\x80\x9d and were asked to\ndiscuss the shortcomings of the OIG, respondents stressed the need of the OIG to pursue \xe2\x80\x9chigh\nvalue\xe2\x80\x9d audits and investigations and to not participate in management decisions. Stakeholders\nalso want a more comprehensive approach to information sharing.\n\nAmtrak Senior Management Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG should not be in the \xe2\x80\x9cgotcha business\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93 it would be helpful if the OIG could\n provide constructive criticism and feedback that allows for a forward-leaning\n improvement plan, as opposed to waiting long periods of time for a report to be issued.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management would welcome the opportunity to give input to the OIG about their\n perceptions of high-risk areas, realizing that management would only be giving input to\n the OIG and that all decisions and reports would be at the final decision of the OIG.\n\n\n\n B-2\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n Amtrak management is aware of many of their risks and would welcome the OIG\n involvement in monitoring these areas of high-risk.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak management has uncovered issues in the past which they believe should have\n been identified by OIG; there have been questions in the past such as \xe2\x80\x9cwhy didn\xe2\x80\x99t the\n OIG catch this?\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Perception is that the OIG has operated too much in a vacuum and has not been looking\n into the right things.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The quality of work produced by the OIG has been very inconsistent.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The I&E group was too involved in the day-to-day management of Amtrak. Despite great\n intentions, the OIG staff were crossing a decision-making boundary that should not have\n been crossed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff needs to have relevant training and skill sets to do quality, standardize audit\n work; institutional knowledge of Amtrak is not enough.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak staff are not clear about the role of an OIG, what they should expect from and\n how they should interact with them. Education for all Amtrak staff about OIG roles\n would be helpful.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is a difficult balance for Amtrak to be transparent as a federal agency, yet maintain\n competitiveness as a private company at the same time.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a need to adjust the perception that the OIG is only really important or needed\n when the company is in trouble. The OIG can provide constructive feedback, and an\n opportunity to learn how to do better.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The company does not have experience in dealing with the OIG in a productive,\n constructive manner, but welcomes the opportunity to do so.\n\nBoard Member Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Board of Directors is generally satisfied with the communication and information it\n is receiving from the IG. However, it was suggested that the IG could have more quality\n time on the agenda at the monthly board meetings.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a perception that some Board members, while deeply experienced in\n government, may not have strong Board/governance experience. It might be useful for\n Board members to receive regular governance training (vs. programmatic training of\n Amtrak operations), including how to interact with an IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is the perception that there are individuals within Amtrak OIG who have close\n relationships with individuals on the Hill, and have leaked damaging information about\n Amtrak to the Hill.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Board members believe that processes within the OIG need to be standardized, so that\n OIG staff can understand what their job is and do quality work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Board members understand that changing culture can take time.\n\nCongressional and Other External Stakeholder Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is not always clear what value Amtrak OIG brings that could not be provided by the\n DOT IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Amtrak OIG needs to engage Congress in a meaningful, proactive, and transparent\n way.\n\n\n B-3\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In the past, the former IG did not share information regarding potential issues soon\n enough and this made it harder for Congress to address issues.\n\nPRODUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS\n\nStakeholder Needs\n\nWhen asked what they need more of from the OIG, almost all stakeholders expressed a need for\ngreater, more coordinated communications. Communicating areas of perceived risk and the\nbusiness case for future activities were mentioned numerous times. Additionally, it was\nrepeatedly suggested that the IG engage external stakeholders more comprehensively and\nmaintain a productive dialogue to ensure that expectations are being met.\n\nVirtually all interviewees expressed a desire for improved communication processes with the\nOIG. The benefit of consistent and predictable communications was stated often, and examples\nof why communication is so integral were shared frequently. Anticipated benefits include less\nredundancy and more effective problem solving at multiple levels. Examples included:\n\nKey Issues Regarding Communication\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There has been a good deal of communication about how the OIG will change its\n practices going forward. While this talk about how things will be done differently going\n forward is a good starting point, the real change will come when OIG reports under the\n \xe2\x80\x9cnew regime\xe2\x80\x9d start being initiated and produced.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG needs to demonstrate how OIG work can improve efficiency and provide value\n to Amtrak. Demonstrating this value, and a cooperative, constructive nature of work,\n will alleviate the Amtrak staff fear currently associated with the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 As part of a strategic planning/annual planning process, the IG could have conversations\n with the Board of Directors and with Amtrak leadership about perceived risks, without\n compromising independence. The IG could get input, but would maintain the final\n decision-making authority.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In the past, OIG staff have launched an audit without a formal introduction or\n information request to Amtrak, and then just disappeared for 6 to 8 months without any\n reporting or communication.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG needs to share his perception of prioritized risk, and share more details about why\n things are being done. Presenting a purpose for a review or a business case for\n completing a strategic plan provides more clarity to stakeholders.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG has been meeting regularly (and separately) with the Amtrak Chief Executive\n Officer and the Amtrak Board Chair, which seems to be effective.\n\nApproaches to Engaging Stakeholders\n\nWhen interviewees were asked about \xe2\x80\x9chow the OIG can engage with you in ways that maximizes\nits value\xe2\x80\x9d discussions focused on a variety of communication approaches that enable\nstakeholders to be informed without overstating their role in the process. Illustrative responses\nincluded:\n\n\n B-4\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\n\nAmtrak Senior Management Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG should continue to develop a collaborative, constructive relationship with\n Amtrak that maintains the independence of the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 As part of the annual planning process, the IG could engage Amtrak senior leadership\n on issues of concern or perceived risk \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak senior management is well aware of\n their areas of perceived risk and would welcome OIG oversight. It is recognized that\n the IG would merely collect their perspective, and would have the final decision as to\n what the OIG examines or what is contained in a report.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It would be useful to receive interim reports from the OIG, so that management does\n not have to wait a long period of time to receive feedback about areas of concern.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It would be very useful to educate all Amtrak staff about the nature of a high-\n performing OIG, and how OIG staff and Amtrak should interact with one another.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG and Amtrak legal teams need to improve their levels of mutual trust and\n communication.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG needs to ensure that it communicates issues in a timely fashion, recognizing\n the need for urgency and a proactive approach.\n\nBoard Member Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IG could engage the Board of Directors around areas of concern when performing the\n annual audit planning process; while learning about Board members\xe2\x80\x99 areas of\n concern, the final decision making authority would rest with the IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IG should continue to attend Board meetings monthly; however, it has been suggested\n that the IG should have more quality time on the agenda.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Since the IG reports to the Board chair, and not to the full Board, it is recommended\n that the IG meets with the Board chair regularly (i.e., monthly) to discuss on-going\n issues.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG should participate in some Amtrak meetings in order to remain informed\n about Amtrak operations and maintain a pulse on the organization. However, if the\n IG does attend regular management meetings, it is critical that the IG observes and\n listens, and does not participate in management decisions.\n\nCongressional and Other External Stakeholder Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some Amtrak staff believe that it is inappropriate for the OIG to consult Congress on\n Amtrak activities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG needs to fully understand political dynamics and congressional legislation\n affecting Amtrak and act on them accordingly in order to maximize their impact for\n the company.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG should meet with the Board monthly, and should have regular face-to-face\n meetings with the Board chair to discuss on-going issues.\n\n\n\n B-5\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\n\nINDEPENDENCE OF THE OIG\n\nMuch of the stakeholder engagement discussion incorporated the importance of maintaining\nindependence. Further questions included \xe2\x80\x9cWhat kinds of things should be done by OIGs to\nmaintain their independence?\xe2\x80\x9d Stakeholders interviewed expressed a great deal of concern with\nthe Amtrak OIG\xe2\x80\x99s independence. Interviewees shared the following thoughts:\n\nBoard Member Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is critical that the Board act in accordance with the fact that the IG reports to the\n Board Chair - not the full Board - and that neither the Board chair nor the Board can\n direct OIG activities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG can and should engage and communicate with the Board, all the while\n maintaining the final decision making authority.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It would be useful to have an interim review that focuses solely on OIG\n independence, to ensure that all the right measures have been undertaken by the\n time CIGIE conducts its follow-up review next year.\n\nAmtrak Senior Management Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a need to educate not only OIG staff about how a high-performing OIG\n operates, but also to educate Amtrak staff and Board members about how an OIG\n should interact with them, so there is no abuse of power or decision-making\n boundaries crossed that should not be.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG should not be addressing management issues; that needs to be done by Amtrak\n management. Lower-level issues that the OIG identifies should be passed along to\n management to deal with. This is being done much more effectively than it was with\n old IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It\xe2\x80\x99s very difficult to audit or investigate the office from which you came and conflicts\n of interest arise.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Those with specific Amtrak subject matter expertise can be a resource assisting those\n with audit and inspection report writing skill sets. A balance of skills is ideal.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Those who are perceived as \xe2\x80\x9cfriendly\xe2\x80\x9d to the OIG have been rarely criticized in\n reports, and those who are not perceived as \xe2\x80\x9cfriendly\xe2\x80\x9d often seem to receive an\n inordinate amount of criticism.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The recommendation of a single initial grant directly to the Inspector General of\n Amtrak, separating its funding source from the entity it is responsible for overseeing,\n reflects progress towards achieving the appropriate level of independence..\n\nCongressional and Other External Stakeholder Perspective\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There was a perception that the former IG and the Board had a relationship that was\n very close and prevented true objectivity.\n\n\n B-6\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Board members need to understand that they cannot direct the OIG, as this position\n reports to the Board Chair only. Board members also can not give direction to the IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management has historically liked the "blessing" of having the OIG know about a\n decision before it\xe2\x80\x99s made. OIG should not be involved in this part of the process.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak management needs to make operational decisions independently, and then\n have the OIG can review it later if necessary.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is feasible for IG offices to share administrative services with its agency and remain\n independent, assuming data integrity, timeliness, and privacy are not issues.\n\nPROCESS IMPROVEMENTS\n\nMany of those interviewed shared concern that the lack of established processes has hindered the\neffectiveness of the OIG. The standardization of regular processes guiding day-to-day activities\nwas referenced by numerous stakeholders. Process areas addressed frequently included audit,\nstrategic planning and risk management. Specific issues surrounding process improvements\nincluded:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A need to have top down, strategic prioritization of OIG work, rather than bottom-up\n determination from lower level OIG staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A need for a formal, standard processes (with established quality control deadlines)\n so that Amtrak staff know what is needed and expected of them, including:\n o Formal engagement announcement\n o Entrance conference\n o Information request\n o Draft report\n o Comment period\n o Final report to be made public\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff need to receive training on these standard processes, so that all staff have\n the ability to complete their job responsibilities in a consistent, quality manner\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff need to input information into the relevant technology (e.g. TeamMate) so\n that work progress can be tracked and resources can be adequately managed\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak OIG should utilize Amtrak resources available to assist with information\n gathering\n o Audit Liaison position role is to help gather information during an audit (in\n addition to track recommendations) and is currently under-utilized\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Legal process and protocols need to be established\n o Identify necessary protocols for interaction when company has exposure\n o Develop interaction procedures between OIG and law department within Amtrak.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG needs to hire staff with necessary analysis skill sets, and consider rotating these\n staff members through Amtrak to help them understand the business\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strategic, audit and operating plans should be published on the Amtrak OIG website,\n and made readily available to all stakeholders.\n\n\nMEASURING OIG PERFORMANCE\nInterviewees were asked about ways to measure the performance of the OIG.\n\n\n B-7\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\nIdentifying Metrics\n\nWhen asked to identify ways to measure the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s performance, interviewees stressed the need\nfor the OIG not to get \xe2\x80\x9cdown in the weeds\xe2\x80\x9d and to operate at a level of high-impact,\norganizational performance. Interviewees agreed that a period of reflection is necessary to assess\nthe results of the audits and investigations. It was also agreed that looking at other comparable\nOIGs for best practice benchmarks can be very helpful. Examples of approaches that were\nmentioned include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quantitative measurements are helpful and necessary for GAO purposes, but it is also\n important to consider \xe2\x80\x9csubjective\xe2\x80\x9d performance measurements that measure impact to\n the agency.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG staff may gain benefit from researching audits that other comparable OIGs are\n doing in an effort to determine appropriate audit areas and metrics.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In order to identify metrics, the OIG should ask itself:\n o \xe2\x80\x9cDid we add value this year?\xe2\x80\x9d\n o How practicable were the recommendations?\n o How many were implemented?\n o What recommendations were not implemented?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG report and recommendations should have real impact on Amtrak efficiency\n improvements. Factors to consider include do they:\n o Save money?\n o Decrease processing time?\n o Increase number of on time arrivals?\n o Increase safety?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The number of reports issued and number of recommendations made are NOT the\n most useful measures.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The value of the OIG should not be correlated to the number of problems that Amtrak\n has but to the ultimate improvement that results from OIG work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recruitment and retention goals met serve as good metric of success for OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Managing change is an integral measure of performance for the current IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 It is also important to have performance metrics at an individual employee level, to\n encourage and recognize good work.\n\nSUMMARY\n\nIn summary, key highlights across the interview data suggest that the OIG is moving in the right\ndirection and has to continue initial steps at stakeholder engagement. Common themes that\nemerged from the stakeholder interviews include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is a need to continue to elevate the focus of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work on big picture,\n strategic work that delivers high levels of impact for Amtrak.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 More formalized schedules and processes for information-sharing will continue the\n initial momentum achieved by the IG, and allow the OIG to operate more efficiently.\n\n\n\n B-8\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The working relationships between members of the OIG and Amtrak senior\n leadership and Board members have improved. However, education for all Amtrak\n staff, senior management, and Board members about the role and expectations of an\n OIG would be useful to ensure a constructive partnership.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 There is still a level of uncertainty among many stakeholders regarding roles and\n responsibilities of the OIG, the benefits it can and will deliver, and the viability of an\n IG entity that is unique to Amtrak and not part of the DOT IG structure.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Many of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external stakeholders have stressed the importance of clearly\n articulating expectations and managing the relationships effectively so that these\n expectations can be met.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Communications between the OIG and Congressional staff needs to be coordinated\n and transparent so that a results-driven dialogue is taking place.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG can harness best practices and lessons learned from other IGs by engaging\n with the great IG community and taking more proactive steps towards improvement.\n\n\n\n\n B-9\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n\n Stakeholders Interviewed\n\nAmtrak\nEleanor Acheson Amtrak Vice President and General Counsel\nJoseph Boardman Amtrak Chief Executive Officer and President\nWilliam Crosbie Amtrak Chief Operation Officer\nStephen Gardner Amtrak Vice President of Policy and Development\nLorraine Green Vice President, Human Resources and Diversity Initiatives\n Amtrak Vice President of Government Affairs and Corporate\nJoe McHugh Communications\nDJ Stadtler Amtrak Chief Financial Officer\nJessica Stritchfield Amtrak Principal Audit/Controls Officer\nCongressional Stakeholders\nEllen Beares Senate Appropriations Staff Member\nEmilia Disanto Chief Investigator, Senator Grassley (R-IA)\nJason Foster Investigative Counsel, Senator Grassley (R-IA)\nSylvia Garcia House Appropriations Staff Member\nRachel Milberg Senate Appropriations Staff Member\nOther Stakeholders\n Inspector General, Farm Credit Administration and Vice Chair of Council of\nCarl Clinefelter Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency\nDave Dobbs Consultant\nDon Hickman Consultant\nJ. Steven Patterson Partner, Hunton & Williams and Head Counsel for Amtrak Board\nLex Stefani Consultant\nBoard Members\nTom Carper Board Chair, Amtrak\nDonna McLean Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors\nNancy Naples Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors\nMark Yachmetz FRA; Ex-officio member of the Board of Directors\n\n\n\n\n B-10\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n\n APPENDIX C\n SUMMARY OF STAFF SURVEY RESULTS\nThe OIG staff survey was designed to solicit the input of staff members across the OIG,\nparticularly those who were not part of the interview process. The survey asked questions about\nthe work processes, leadership, communication, and other areas related to working in the OIG.\nThe staff survey was disseminated electronically on June 4, 2010, to 90 individuals in the Office\nof Inspector General. It closed on Wednesday, June 16. The survey consisted of both open-\nended and discrete choice questions.\n\nDEMOGRAPHICS\n\nA total of 90 members of the OIG received a survey invitation. Of those, 83 (92%) answered at\nleast portions of the survey and there were a total of 74 (82%) completed, valid records for\nanalysis. 1\n\nRespondents are spread across the various levels of tenure in the OIG:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 30% have worked in the OIG longer than 11 years\n \xe2\x80\xa2 25% have worked in the OIG 6-10 years\n \xe2\x80\xa2 33% have worked in the OIG 1-5 years\n \xe2\x80\xa2 12% are new employees, who have been with OIG less than one year.\n\nMost of the respondents work in Audit (46%). Representation of each office is fairly consistent\nwith the actual distribution of employees (Table 1).\n\n\n Table 1. Distribution of Respondents and Staff Across Offices\n Percent of Percent of\n Offices Respondents Staff\n (n=78) (n=92)\n Audit 46.2 % 42%\n Inspections & Evaluation 12.8% 11%\n Investigations 30.8% 30%\n Counsel to the IG 3.8% 5%\n Management & Policy 6.4% 8%\n\nJust over half (58%) work in OIG field offices, with the remainder (42%) working at\nheadquarters. Approximately one-third (36%) once worked directly for Amtrak.\n\n\n\n\n1\n One case reflected the input of the IG and was removed from the dataset prior to analysis.\n\n\n C-1\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\nOIG STRATGIC PLAN\n\nMost respondents indicated they have a good understanding of the OIG Strategic Plan (with\n81%, n=64, indicating they \xe2\x80\x9cagree\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cstrongly agree\xe2\x80\x9d with the question). The same strong\nmajority (81%, n=64) support the goals described in the strategic plan.\n\nMost indicate they understand how their work relates to the goals in the plan (76%, n=60), and a\nstrong majority (78%, n=61) indicated that their supervisor expressed support for the goals.\n\nExample comments include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Given the guidance and allotted time, the OIG Strategic Plan is a good product.\n However, to do it \xe2\x80\x9cright,\xe2\x80\x9d more time will be required to do a full assessment of the\n current environment to better identify critical areas for the department to focus.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strategic plan seems too focused on cooperative efforts with Amtrak management, rather\n than the oversight of Amtrak, which is the OIG mission.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There has been limited communication on how we plan to implement this strategy and\n what the OIG role will be in helping Amtrak meet its strategic goals and objectives.\n\nROLE OF OIG\n\nFunctional Priorities. Staff were asked to indicate the current emphasis placed by the OIG on\nthe five different functions. The data indicate that the current emphasis is: 1) Audits, 2)\nInvestigations, and 3) Management and Policy.\n\n\n\n\n C-2\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n\n\nThey were then asked what they thought the functional priorities should be, among the same five\nfunctional areas. There was fairly clear agreement that Audits are and should continue to be the\ntop priority, followed by Investigations. Inspections and Evaluations moved up to third in\npriority in the \xe2\x80\x9cshould be\xe2\x80\x9d state, while Management and Policy moved to fourth.\n\n\n\n\n C-3\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n\n\nOversight Priorities. Respondents were asked in an open-ended format their perception of\nwhat the current oversight priority areas are, and what they should be. Respondents\noverwhelmingly identified the Recovery Act as the current and \xe2\x80\x9cshould be\xe2\x80\x9d OIG oversight top\npriority. They were less clear about what is currently second and third in priority (the largest\nresponse given was \xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t know\xe2\x80\x9d).\n\nWhile they are somewhat unclear about the current OIG priorities, they expressed clearer ideas\nabout what should be the top three priorities. These were: 1) Recovery Act, 2) Waste/internal\ncontrols/efficiency, and 3) Improvements to Amtrak operations resulting from OIG work. The\nsecond priority area speaks to the core business of OIG (e.g., audits, evaluations, investigations),\nwhile the third priority area builds on this work--demonstrating actual improvements to Amtrak\noperations.\n Table 2. OIG Top 3 Oversight Priorities: Current and \xe2\x80\x9cShould Be\xe2\x80\x9d\n Current Priority \xe2\x80\x9cShould be\xe2\x80\x9d Priority\n\n First Priority Recovery Act Recovery Act\n Second Priority Don\xe2\x80\x99t know Waste/internal controls/efficiency\n Third Priority Don\xe2\x80\x99t know Improvements to operations from\n OIG work (impact)\n\n\n\n C-4\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n\nIndependence. Participants were asked how well the OIG maintains its independence from the\nCompany, the programs it reviews, and external stakeholders. Overall the results suggest that the\nstaff do not feel strongly that the Amtrak OIG is independent. Most respondents indicated the\nAmtrak OIG is \xe2\x80\x9csomewhat independent\xe2\x80\x9d (61%, n=46). About one fifth (22%, n=17) indicated it\nis \xe2\x80\x9cextremely independent\xe2\x80\x9d; a smaller number (8%, n=6) think it is \xe2\x80\x9cnot at all independent,\xe2\x80\x9d and\na similar number \xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t know\xe2\x80\x9d (9%, n=7).\n\nIn an open-ended format, respondents were asked to provide suggestions to improve the\nindependence of the OIG. A total of 59 comments were offered, but not all were responsive to\nthe question. Of those that offered suggestions, the following themes emerged:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Hold to a position without the influence of Amtrak management, and initiate our own work\n (17% n=10)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Have the IG report to Congress, not the Board of Directors (12%, n=7)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Maintain open access to Amtrak records (10%, n=6)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reference the IG Act often, reinforce its message and educate both OIG and Amtrak staff\n on what it means (8%, n=5)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Hold management accountable for implementing OIG recommendations (7%, n=4)\n\nExample comments include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We should take the initiative in conducting audits, reviews, and investigations and not\n wait for endorsement by the Board.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A culture change of the OIG staff as to exactly what independence entitles them to. Now\n staff just announce they are OIG and expect things to be done\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Behaving as if we are half federal and half Amtrak only hurts our creditability and allows\n for Amtrak to influence our views, which is not good for the OIG or Amtrak\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG needs to ensure there is transparency with our reports and responses by the\n company.\n\nWORKING IN THE OIG\nPersonal. Generally, respondents are comfortable with their understanding of the organizational\nstructure (83% agree/strongly agree) and where they fit in that structure (74% agree/strongly\nagree) (see Table 3 below).\n\nRespondents also believe that they understand how their work relates to the goals and priorities\nof their positions (76% agree/strongly agree). This compares favorably to a somewhat similar\nquestion posed in the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey conducted by OPM (i.e., managers\ncommunicate the goals and priorities of the organization); the result is better than that achieved\nby the Federal government as a whole (60% positive).\n\nMost respondents also believe that their performance appraisal is a fair reflection of their\nperformance (67% agree/strongly agree). This result is similar to the results of the 2008 OPM\nsurvey, where 63% of all Federal employee respondents said that their performance appraisal is a\n\n\n C-5\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nfair reflection of their performance. The majority of OIG respondents also indicated that they\nfeel motivated to do their best work (64% agree/strongly agree). Similarly, most respondents\nwere satisfied with the opportunities they have been given for training and professional\ndevelopment (68% agree/strongly agree).\n\nWhile most respondents said their workload is reasonable (73% agree/strongly agree). The OIG\ncomposite results are more favorable than the results of the 2008 OPM survey where 60% of all\nFederal employees said their workload is reasonable.\n\nThe most consistently negative responses were related to communication. Fewer than half of the\nrespondents believe they receive adequate and timely information from OIG leaders on issues\nthat affect them personally (43%, n=32). Similarly, less than half are (41%, n=31) satisfied with\nthe information they receive about what\xe2\x80\x99s going on in the organization.\n\n Table 3: Assessment of Own Work Situation\n Rating*\n % Average\n % Strongly\n Strongly (1=Strongly\n Assessment of Own Work Situation Disagree or\n Agree or Agree/\n Disagree\n Agree 5=Strongly\n Disagree)\nI know how my work relates to the OIG\'s goals and\n 76% 6% 2.09\npriorities.\nI know where I fit within the current organizational\n 74% 14% 2.13\nstructure.\nI understand the goals and expectations for my position. 76% 9% 2.03\nMy performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my\n 67% 8% 2.58\nperformance.\nI am given adequate opportunities for training and\n 68% 16% 2.23\nprofessional development.\nI feel motivated and inspired to do my best work. 64% 18% 2.24\nI understand the current organizational structure and\n 83% 7% 1.95\nreporting relationships.\nMy workload is reasonable. 73% 13% 2.32\nI receive adequate and timely information from OIG\n 43% 30% 2.88\nleaders on issues that affect me personally.\nI am satisfied with the information I receive from\n 41% 44% 3.32\nOIG leaders on what\'s going on in the organization.\n*Lower average ratings indicate more favorable responses\n\nIN MY GROUP\n\nImmediate Office. On the whole, respondents think highly of the commitment (75% positive)\nand experience (66% positive) of the people in their immediate office/work group (see Table 4\nbelow). They also generally believe (86% agree/strongly agree, n=65) that their colleagues are\nwilling to learn and use automated tools to do their job.\n\n\n\n\n C-6\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nA majority (62%, n=60) are positive about the ability/willingness of their colleagues to adapt to\nchanging priorities, new approaches to work (79%, n=65), or changes in organizational structure\nand reporting relationships (54%, n=41).\n\nOver one-third (42%, n=32) have a negative impression of the morale in the office, and only\nabout one third (37%, n=28) believe that staffing levels are adequate.\n\n Table 4: Assessment of Immediate Office\n Rating*\n Average\n % Strongly % Strongly\n (1=Strongly\n Assessment of Immediate Office Agree or Disagree or\n Agree/\n Agree Disagree\n 5=Strongly\n Disagree)\nStaff members are willing to learn and use automated\n 86% 9% 2.01\ntools to do their jobs.\nStaff members are highly committed to the mission of\n 75% 5% 2.16\nthe OIG.\nStaff members have the right backgrounds and\n 66% 17% 2.31\nexperience to do their jobs.\nStaff members are willing to adopt new approaches to\n 79% 9% 2.12\nthe work.\nStaff members adapt easily to changing priorities. 62% 18% 2.45\nStaff members adapt easily to changes in\n 54% 21% 2.7\norganizational structure and reporting relationships.\nThe office has the right mix of skills for the work that\n 59% 25% 2.63\nneeds to be done.\nMorale is high among the staff members in my\n 37% 42% 3.14\noffice/division/work group.\nThe number of staff is adequate. 37% 37% 3.03\n * Scale ranged from 1=more favorable ratings to 5=least favorable ratings\n\nMY IMMEDIATE MANAGER/SUPERVISOR\n\nDirect Manager/Supervisor. When asked questions about their own manager/supervisor,\nrespondents report generally favorable views, and there was little variability in ratings (see Table\n5 below). More than two-thirds have a positive view of their manager/supervisor\xe2\x80\x99s willingness\nto adopt new approaches to work (88%, n=65), ability to work with people of different\nbackgrounds (84%, n=62), and independence from outside stakeholders (80%, n=60). All three\nissues drew very little in terms of negative views (5% to 8%). On the question of whether\nmanagers/supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds, the OIG results (84%\nstrongly agree/agree) compare very favorably to the 2008 OPM Federal Human Capital Survey\nresults for government as a whole (65% strongly agree/agree).\n\nOver half of the respondents have favorable opinions about their own manager\xe2\x80\x99s guidance to\nstaff (76%, n=56), communications about the goals and priorities of the OIG (73%, n=54), and\nability to adapt to changing priorities (74%, n=55). With regard to managers communication of\nthe goals and priorities of the organization, the 2008 OPM survey results for the federal\n\n\n C-7\n\x0c Appendix C\n\ngovernment overall (60% strongly agree/agree) were slightly lower than the OIG results in this\nsurvey (73%).\n\nRespondents also have a generally positive view of their own manager\xe2\x80\x99s ability to see the \xe2\x80\x9cbig\npicture\xe2\x80\x9d across audits, investigations and evaluations (73%, n=54), as well as their understanding\nof the full range of programs across Amtrak (73%, n=54). Similarly a substantial number of\nrespondents (73%, n=54) believe that their manager/supervisor adapts easily to changes in\norganizational structure and reporting relationships.\n\n Table 5: Assessment of Direct Manager/Supervisor\n Rating Average\n % Strongly (1=Strongly\n Assessment of Direct % Strongly\n Disagree or Agree/\n Manager/Supervisor Agree or Agree\n Disagree 5=Strongly\n Disagree)\nMy manager/supervisor treats me with respect 88% 8% 1.68\nMy manager/supervisor works well with\n 84% 8% 1.87\nemployees of different backgrounds.\nMy manager/supervisor is willing to adopt new\n 88% 5% 1.95\napproaches to the work.\nMy manager/supervisor demonstrates\n 80% 5% 1.95\nindependence from outside stakeholders.\nMy manager/supervisor provides appropriate\n 76% 9% 2.03\nguidance and direction for my work.\nMy manager/supervisor models good\n 76% 12% 2.03\nteamwork for the staff.\nMy manager/supervisor adapts well to\n 74% 10% 2.09\nchanging priorities.\nMy manager/supervisor communicates the\n 73% 12% 2.05\ngoals and priorities of the OIG.\nMy manager/supervisor has a good\nunderstanding of the full range of programs 73% 15% 2.09\nacross Amtrak.\nMy manager/supervisor is good at seeing the\n\xe2\x80\x9cbig picture\xe2\x80\x9d across the various audits,\n 73% 15% 2.07\ninvestigations and evaluations done by the\nOIG.\nMy manager/supervisor adapts easily to\nchanges in organizational structure and 73% 12% 2.20\nreporting relationships within the OIG.\n * Scale ranged from 1=more favorable ratings to 5=least favorable ratings\n\nA total of 24 comments were offered about first line supervisors, with most falling into one of\nthree general themes:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Complimentary statements, such as they provide good direction, \xe2\x80\x9cthe reason I stayed,\xe2\x80\x9d and\n praise for specific individuals;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Complaints about their inexperience with Amtrak or lack of knowledge, noting their need\n for more advanced technical skills and knowledge of the railroad; and\n\n\n C-8\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Comments about the lack of communication, either from the supervisor, or lack of\n communication among supervisors.\n\nExample comments about this last bullet point include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 They should speak with each other\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Managers lack basic managerial skills and are not held accountable for managing staff.\n Many have solid technical skills but have no idea how to engage and motivate staff;\n instead, they prefer to micromanage.\n\nTHE OIG EXECUTIVE TEAM\n\nExecutive Team. Respondents expressed less favorable average ratings for the Executive team\noverall compared to ratings of their immediate supervisors, and there was more variability\namong the ratings (see Table 6 below). In general, respondents expressed increased levels of\nambiguity offering more \xe2\x80\x9cneither agree or disagree\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t know\xe2\x80\x9d responses. The highest\nrated attributes were the senior staff\xe2\x80\x99s ability to work with employees of different backgrounds\n(54%, n=40), demonstration of the guiding principles and values of the OIG (51%, n=38), their\nwillingness to adopt new approaches to the work of the OIG (50% n=37), and their ability to\ncommunicate the goals and priorities of the OIG (49%, n=36). Fewer than half of the\nrespondents provided positive ratings to the remaining items pertaining to Executive Team\nbehavior.\n\nMost of the 26 comments offered about the Executive team pertained to their lack of knowledge\nof Amtrak, lack of unity and support for changes within OIG, and poor communication. Of\nprimary concern is the need for newer members of the Executive team to learn more about\nAmtrak and develop clear direction for the office. Other examples noted that the Executive team\nis \xe2\x80\x9cdivided\xe2\x80\x9d and that some prefer the status quo, and some will resist the new leadership.\nExamples of communication concerns mentioned that the Executive team is \xe2\x80\x9coverly secretive\xe2\x80\x9d or\nsets a \xe2\x80\x9cpoor example of communication,\xe2\x80\x9d which results in the prevalence of rumors about\npending changes and the direction of the office.\n\nExample comments include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Executive team is new and most of these questions can\xe2\x80\x99t be answered fairly because\n of that, however, we still seem to be operating in a secret atmosphere with little\n interaction with the company.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG Executive team is much improved but still divided. Despite new blood some old\n issues continue to cloud OIG management\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Most of what we hear are rumors and not facts from Executive management.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Team building at all levels is key to its success.\n\n\n\n\n C-9\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n Table 6: Assessment of Executive Team\n Rating\n Average\n % Strongly % Strongly\n (1=Strongly\n Assessment of Senior Staff Agree or Disagree or\n Agree/\n Agree Disagree\n 5=Strongly\n Disagree)\n The Executive team works well with employees of\n 54% 13% 2.91\n different backgrounds.\n The Executive team demonstrates the guiding\n 51% 18% 2.70\n principles and values of the OIG.\n The Executive team is willing to adopt new\n 50% 14% 3.09\n approaches to the work of the OIG.\n The Executive team effectively communicates the\n 49% 24% 2.73\n goals and priorities of the OIG.\n The Executive team provides appropriate guidance\n 45% 29% 2.73\n and direction to the work of the OIG.\n The Executive team demonstrates independence\n 45% 23% 3.16\n from outside stakeholders.\n The Executive team is good at seeing the \xe2\x80\x9cbig\n picture\xe2\x80\x9d across on the various audits, investigations 39% 19% 3.16\n and evaluations done by the OIG.\n The Executive team adapts easily to changes in\n 39% 16% 3.41\n organizational structure and reporting relationships.\n The Executive team adapts well to changing\n 36% 13% 3.49\n priorities.\n The Executive team has a good understanding of\n 35% 33% 3.44\n the full range of programs across Amtrak.\n The Executive team models good teamwork for the\n 35% 27% 3.28\n staff.\n * Scale ranged from 1=more favorable ratings to 5=least favorable ratings\n\nWORK PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS\n\nThe ratings for work processes and systems were highly variable, and many items about specific\ntools or training were relevant only to certain segments of the OIG population (see Table 7\nbelow).\n\nCommunication Methods. Opinion about the communications methods available and used by\nthe OIG were almost evenly split among those who thought they were \xe2\x80\x9cgood\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery good\xe2\x80\x9d\n(32%, n=24), those who said they were \xe2\x80\x9csatisfactory\xe2\x80\x9d (37%, n=27), and those who said they\nwere \xe2\x80\x9cpoor\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery poor\xe2\x80\x9d (31%, n=23).\n\nTraining and Guidance. Similarly, ratings of training on OIG work processes, systems and\ntools were split three-ways. About the same number of respondents gave \xe2\x80\x9cgood\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cpoor\xe2\x80\x9d\nratings (33%, n=24 for each category), about one-third were \xe2\x80\x9csatisfied\xe2\x80\x9d (33%, n=24), and about\none quarter (27%, n=20) said it was \xe2\x80\x9cpoor,\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery poor\xe2\x80\x9d (the remainder selected \xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t\nknow\xe2\x80\x9d).\n\n\n\n C-10\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nQuality Assurance. Most respondents who rated this item indicated that the quality assurance\nreview process was satisfactory (31%) or better (26%). About one-quarter of those who rated\nthis item (23%) said it was poor or very poor. However, a review of comments/suggestions for\nimproving the efficiency of the office suggests that there is significant staff concern about the\nneed for technical guidelines and process improvements, and specific improvements to the\nefficiency of the report review process (see \xe2\x80\x9cImprovements to Work Processes\xe2\x80\x9d, below).\n\nUse of Cross-Functional Teams. Few respondents think the use of cross-functional teams is\nsatisfactory (20%) or good/very good (12%). Over one-third (38%) think that the use of multi-\ndiscipline/cross-functional teams is poor or very poor, nearly one quarter (23%) indicated they\n\xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t know\xe2\x80\x9d and could not rate the item.\n\n Table 7: Assessment of Work Processes and Systems\n Rating\n Average\n % Very % Very\n Assessment of Work Processes and % (1=Very\n Good or Poor or\n Systems Satisfactory Good/\n Good Poor\n 5=Very\n Poor)\n Technical guidance on how to conduct\n 62% 19% 19% 2.31\n evaluations (16 rated this)\n Technical guidance on how to conduct\n 42% 22% 38% 2.87\n audits (total of 45 rated this)\n Technical guidance on how to conduct\n 41% 32% 27% 2.79\n investigations (34 rated this)\n Training on the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work processes,\n 33% 33% 27% 3.10\n systems and tools\n Internal communication methods (e.g.,\n 32% 37% 31% 3.0\n all-hands meetings, email)\n Guidance and training provided on AIM\n 32% 34% 34% 3.05\n (41 rated this item)\n Guidance and training provided on\n 28% 35% 37% 3.04\n TeamMate (46 rate this item)\n Quality assurance review processes (59\n 26% 31% 23% 2.95\n rated this item)\n Guidance offered on records\n management (e.g., folder structures, file 23% 28% 34% 3.61\n naming conventions, archiving rules)\n Use of multi-discipline (cross-functional)\n 12% 20% 38% 3.48\n teams (52 rated this)\n Use of teams within a functional group,\n but from different work locations (52 17% 29% 54% 3.21\n rated this item)\n * Scale ranged from 1=more favorable ratings to 5=least favorable ratings\n\nImprovements to Work Processes. When asked to identify one or two process improvements\nthat should be made to improve the timeliness or quality of OIG work products, 56 respondents\noffered at least one suggestion. Not all answers given to this item were responsive, but of those\nthat were, some themes emerged. Most frequently suggested (29%, n=16 respondents) were the\n\n\n\n C-11\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nneed for technical guidance and standardized, transparent work processes around audit\ncompletion and report preparation. A specific work process that garnered twelve comments\nsuggested the OIG improve the efficiency of its report preparation process (21%, n=12),\nincluding both the review process itself (e.g., number and levels of review) and setting standard\nformats for different types of work.\n\nTraining emerged as another theme, with 23% (n=13) of the comments noting there is a need for\nspecific technical training on TeamMate, Amtrak Investigations Management System (AIMS),\nand overall accounting standards and guidelines.\n\nCommunication practices comprised another set of suggestions (9%, n=5), with people\ndescribing both mechanisms (i.e., the need for more all-hands meetings), as well as content (i.e.,\nsharing expectations to enhance accountability) (9%, n=5).\n\nExample comments include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Report writing standards and mandatory compliance with those standards from all OIG\n staff regardless of the work unit. Development and implementation of a fact-based risk\n assessment tool to determine what value-added work really needs to be done.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Often, what\xe2\x80\x99s being reported is outdated by the time the review process has been\n completed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 More communication across functional areas and between senior OIG management and\n employees is needed. Change is often painful but not having a sense of what is taking\n place is the most painful.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The staff needs to be provided with clear, concise direction. Lately, processes have been\n changing and re-changing weekly, daily, etc. which is causing confusion and further\n moral issues with the staff. There are a lot of hard working people who want to \xe2\x80\x9cdo the\n job\xe2\x80\x9d but they need to understand what is expected of them and consistency.\n\nSTRENGTHS OF OIG\n\nStrengths. Respondents were asked what they considered to be the core strengths of the Office\nof the Inspector General. Of the 75 people who answered this question, the most frequently\nmentioned strength was the OIG employees (50 respondents, or 66%). Among the qualities cited\nwere their:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Knowledge of Amtrak\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Experience;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Credibility (particularly in Investigations)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Teamwork; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Dedication.\n\nThe next most frequently mentioned strength (9 respondents, or 12%) was the mission of the IG\nitself and the independence of the office. A handful of respondents named the new leadership\nand the changes made to date as a core strength (4%, n=3). No other themes emerged as core\nstrengths.\n\n\n\n\n C-12\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nIssues, Trends, and Challenges. Respondents were asked to identify major issues, trends, and\nchallenges that will have the biggest impact on OIG in the future. A total of 65 responses were\noffered, though not all reflected valid responses to the question posed. A total of 40 valid\nresponses grouped into two main types of trends or challenges: 1) internal (affecting OIG\noperations) and 2) external (those that extend beyond the OIG internal functioning).\n\n\n\n\n C-13\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n Table 8: Staff responses on major issues, trends, and challenges for OIG\n\n Number of\n Respondents\n Challenges Listing Percentage of Total\n Challenge Respondents\nInternal Challenges\nHuman Capital \xe2\x80\x93 pending retirements and succession planning 19 29%\nReinforcing OIG independence and disengaging from Amtrak\nmanagement 9 14%\nAutomated tools 3 5%\nExternal Challenges\nNeed for high impact audits/investigations based on risk to\nAmtrak operations 7 11%\nRecovery Act 5 8%\n\n\n The remaining comments did not reflect a theme or broad issue, but were ideas not shared by\n more than two individuals, such as:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak IT investment;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Employee theft;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cross-functional teams; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Yellow Book standards and International Professional Practices Framework (IPFF).\n\n PLANNING FOR OIG\xe2\x80\x99S FUTURE\n\n When asked about how prepared the OIG is to effectively address its future challenges, the most\n frequent response was \xe2\x80\x9csomewhat prepared\xe2\x80\x9d (41%, n=30). Most respondents expressed at least\n this level of confidence or greater in the OIG capability to handle the future. The red and green\n sections of the chart below indicate that a quarter of the OIG respondents who said that office\n was \xe2\x80\x9cunprepared\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery unprepared\xe2\x80\x9d to handle future challenges.\n\n\n\n\n C-14\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\n\n\nMEASURING OIG OUTCOMES\n\nPerformance Measures. Respondents were asked what measures should be used to evaluate the\nsuccess of OIG as an organization; 60 respondents offered suggestions. The responses were a\nmix of traditional OIG measures (e.g., number of recommendations, funds put to better use),\noutcomes (or impacts) affecting Amtrak performance, and process improvement measures.\n\nThe most frequent suggestions (13%, n=8) were measures of how well OIG findings were\nimpacting the occurrence of waste/fraud/abuse/mismanagement within Amtrak, with many tying\nOIG outcomes to measures from Amtrak programs (e.g., hiring cost per employee, loss of food\nand beverage operations). These kinds of measures move beyond outputs (e.g., number of\nrecommendations) to long-term impact of implementing the recommendations. Another\nimportant suggestion was to survey OIG stakeholders\xe2\x80\x94specifically the auditees and users of\nOIG reports\xe2\x80\x94to assess both the process and the value of the product. Responses were given by\nonly one or two participants and include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prevention measures, such as deterrence of fraud, money saved through deterrence;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 How strongly OIG recommendations support Amtrak strategic goals; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 How well the OIG meets its own strategic goals.\n\n\n C-15\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n\nCLOSING COMMENTS\n\nThe final section of the survey gave respondents the opportunity to comment on or mention\nanything else that they would like to share. A total of 32 people submitted a response (in some\ncases just noting \xe2\x80\x9cnothing\xe2\x80\x9d). Of those that offered substantive comments, the most frequent\nresponses (38%, n=12) noted problems with the OIG culture, climate and morale. OIG is\ndescribed as \xe2\x80\x9cdysfunctional,\xe2\x80\x9d with too much \xe2\x80\x9cdivision\xe2\x80\x9d within the office (sometimes indicating\nspecific groups that are a source of discord), overall low morale.\n\nOther themes that emerged include the need to be honest with employees when making\npromises, sharing plans for reorganization, etc., noting that many employees have low trust of\nthe OIG leadership and are fearful of job loss (18%, n=6). The need was expressed for better\ncommunication channels and practices (13%, n=4), and the need to recognize the uniqueness of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s business and organization, rather than trying to replicate a standard Federal OIG model\n(13%, n=4). Others \xe2\x80\x9clook forward to the changes\xe2\x80\x9d planned by the new IG (13%, n=4).\n\nOther less frequent comments (expressed by 3 or fewer individuals) included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Restructure the salary and recognition system, adopt more meaningful titles;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The perception that the new IG is trying to get rid of older employees;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Better align resources within the office, including physically co-locate staff to foster better\n teamwork and collaboration;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Start a mentoring initiative; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Criticisms of the NAPA study, noting the numerous previous assessments of the office and\n skepticism that positive change will result.\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe OIG staff is well represented by this survey, with a strong majority of the OIG workforce\noffering their views. Overall, staff indicate that they personally understand and support the\nstrategic plan, yet note that questions remain about the details of how it will be implemented.\nMost understand their current role and responsibilities, and a strong majority thinks that ARRA\nis and should be the top oversight priority in the OIG. They were less certain about the other\ncurrent priorities of the work (\xe2\x80\x9cdon\xe2\x80\x99t know\xe2\x80\x9d were the top responses). They were clear, however,\nin identifying what should be the oversight priorities\xe2\x80\x94detecting waste/fraud/internal controls,\nand improving Amtrak operations (having an impact). These responses suggest that staff know\nwhat the work of the OIG should be doing, but that they are less sure that the OIG is actually\ndoing it to the degree needed or appropriate.\n\nOrganizationally, most agree that Audit and Investigations are and should be the top two\nfunctional emphases within the office, but there are varied opinions about the third most\nemphasized function. At present, most indicate that M&P is getting high emphasis, but that\nInspections & Evaluations should actually be more prominent. This finding, taken together with\nthe findings related to the top oversight priorities noted above, suggest that internal issues within\nthe OIG are taking attention away from the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s core business.\n\n\n\n C-16\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nAmtrak OIG is not viewed as a strongly independent office by the staff, and suggestions were\noffered to both educate others and behave in ways to reinforce its independence. Staff members\nwere favorable in their views of their immediate supervisors, but less favorable in ratings of the\nExecutive team. Motivation and morale were somewhat low, and ratings of all items relating to\nwork processes and systems were fairly low (fewer than half of the responses were favorable).\nMany note problems with training, communication, use of cross-functional teams, overall\napproach and planning of the work. These results are consistent with findings across multiple\ninterviews (including the OIG Executive team, other OIG interviewees, and stakeholders). While\nproblems in day-to-day processes are evident, respondents were generally positive about the\nwillingness of staff and managers to adopt changes and learn new processes.\n\nStaff indicated that the core strength of the office is its people, mentioning the specific\nknowledge and skill sets many possess. While this is cited as a strength, other items in the survey\nalso indicate that knowledge and skill is not universally present across the OIG, and that many\nstaff (and managers) would benefit from increased training. Comments throughout the survey\nindicated a concern about the high number of retirement eligible staff members, and few felt the\noffice is well prepared to meet its pending challenges around human capital management. The\nthreat of substantial attrition in key areas, along with the inconsistent distribution of expertise\nacross the office, further emphasizes the need for succession planning, including an approach for\nhiring, training and developing more junior staff.\n\nSuggestions for measuring OIG performance were a mix of traditional measures (e.g., number of\nrecommendations, funds put to better use), as well as process improvement and actual indicators\nof impact. Some described linkages between actions by the OIG (fraud awareness, deterrence,\nprocess improvements) and actual savings, suggesting they do see the ultimate, long-term benefit\nof OIG work to Amtrak and the taxpayer. This suggests that they recognize the value of the OIG\nwork in broader terms.\n\nOverall, the survey results support many of the findings from the internal and stakeholder\ninterviews, particularly around the need for improved approaches to conducting the work. The\nsurvey results further suggest that OIG attention is currently focused on internal management\nissues (though not necessarily those that pose a significant risk, i.e., succession planning), which\nmay be detracting from its ability to fully support its mission.\n\n\n\n\n C-17\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n Appendix D\n Benchmarking with Other OIGs\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nAs part of the organizational assessment conducted for the Amtrak OIG, the National\nAcademy study team conducted a benchmarking effort that identified leading practices\nwithin the OIG community. This effort involved a review of available documents and\npublications from and about the IG community, as well as interviews with 11 senior staff\nat five high-performing OIGs.\n\nThe five OIGs interviewed included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Department of Commerce (DoC), 4 interviewees;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Department of Justice (DoJ), 2 interviewees;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 2 interviewees;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Department of Energy (DoE), 2 interviewees; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), 1 interviewee\n\nAreas of Interest to Amtrak OIG\n\nThe study team, Academy Panel, and Amtrak OIG leadership identified the following\nareas to explore in the benchmark interviews:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prioritization of OIG Work\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal and External Communication\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality Work Processes\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policy Development and Updates\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Processes Guiding Cross-Functional Teams\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Human Capital Management\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG Independence\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Performance Measurement\n\nSUMMARY OF BENCHMARKING INTERVIEWS\n\nEach interview touched on many, but not necessarily all of the eight topic areas. The key\nfindings, in terms of their current practices in each area, are synthesized across the\ninterviews and highlighted below.\n\nPrioritization of OIG Work\n\nAll of the OIGs engage in some type of annual process to identify the strategic issues that\nwill frame the work of the office for the coming year. The OIGs vary, however, in the\nlevel of rigor that guides their process.\n\n\n\n\n D-1\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nShared Practices\n\nAlmost every benchmarked OIG highlighted the importance of strategic planning and\nannual planning for an organization. Interviewees shared their experiences in developing\nstrategic plans and annual plans.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A majority of the OIGs developed an overarching multi-year strategic plan that\n considers current and emerging agency programs, risks, and management\n challenges. 1 They also developed an annual or periodic OIG work plan (sometimes\n referred to as an \xe2\x80\x9caudit plan,\xe2\x80\x9d though a work plan covers more than audits) that\n identified and prioritized agency programs that would be subject to audit,\n investigation, inspection/ evaluation in the coming year.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Typical components of an OIG annual planning process included:\n o A top-down/bottom-up planning approach in which the IG and senior leaders set\n the strategic direction of the type of work they would like to see performed the\n coming year; multiple levels of OIG staff then made suggestions about\n perceived areas of risk, and provided details and context about those areas\n o A thorough scan of the external environment through discussions with\n agency/department heads, board of directors, Congress, and others. This scan\n ensured that the OIG was focused on the issues that mattered to their\n stakeholders and the public. Of note is that the IG collected different\n perspectives, yet maintained the final decision making authority.\n o Risk assessments and established prioritization/ranking criteria to prioritize\n critical risk areas\n o An annual review/update of strategic plans, to incorporate unexpected, timely\n issues\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OIGs highlighted the importance of focusing on issues with high-level, strategic\n impacts.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Some benchmarked OIGs found it important to coordinate their work internally and\n externally with other groups performing independent evaluations to avoid conflicts or\n overlaps.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OIGs noted that, once the annual planning is complete, it was important to engage in\n continuous, candid dialogue with stakeholders throughout the year to discuss on-\n going areas of perceived risk, share interim findings, and to maintain cooperative\n relationships with stakeholders.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG followed a rigorous planning process with multiple levels of\n staff engagement and management review. Staff described it as a \xe2\x80\x9ctop-down/bottom-\n up\xe2\x80\x9d process: the IG gathered information on high-level risks and priorities from a\n number of sources, including the Department Secretary, Congressional stakeholders,\n other oversight organizations and agencies (e.g., NRC, EPA), as well as internal OIG\n1\n Some noted they prepare a \xe2\x80\x9cstrategic plan\xe2\x80\x9d for the OIG, but the interviews focused primarily on how the\nactual work is planned and prioritized, and did not address internal OIG improvements that would be\ncaptured in a strategic plan.\n\n\n D-2\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n sources; senior leadership then gave overall requirements and strategic direction to\n the entire OIG, while field staff developed specific details regarding risks.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG worked with a Chief Risk Officer at their agency because\n safety and risk mitigation was such a critical, organization-wide issue; the agency\n performed its own Enterprise Risk Assessment which is considered in conjunction\n with the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessments and strategic planning. The OIG ranked and\n prioritized all areas of risk identified by both the agency and the OIG according to\n three factors: materiality, impact operations, and public sensitivity.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG encouraged all staff to submit work suggestions to their\n supervisor throughout the year. Each year, all audit managers (approximately 25)\n from seven field offices were invited to HQ to meet with senior leadership and to\n review and prioritize all the suggestions for the audit plan. The field office whose\n suggestions made the final prioritization were commended.\n\nInternal Communication\n\nWhen asked about internal communication practices, interviewees provided a wide range\nof responses.\n\nShared Practices\n\nInternal Communications\nBenchmarked OIGs discussed their experiences in developing consistent and productive\ninternal communications.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Almost all interviewed OIGs had strong IG visibility, and IGs who developed\n cultures that expected senior staff to be visible, to engage with staff at multiple\n levels, to recognize staff achievements, and to show appreciation for good work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Almost every interviewee highlighted the importance of holding frequent, regular\n meetings within the organization, including:\n o Weekly senior team meetings of the IG and the Deputy/AIGs so that all\n functional leaders are apprised of ongoing work and issues across the\n organization;\n o Weekly or frequent meetings of each AIG and his/her staff to discuss status\n and emerging issues;\n o Periodic meetings (a few times a year) of high-level/mid-level managers from\n across the OIG, often bringing them in from field locations, to conduct\n planning and share lessons learned; and\n o Periodic (quarterly or semiannually) all-hands meetings (weekly in some\n small OIGs).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In addition to the above scheduled meetings, IGs and senior leaders also had\n regular, informal gatherings with staff members\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An OIG-specific intranet was used to \xe2\x80\x9cpush\xe2\x80\x9d information out to the staff, such as\n - Messages from the IG; and\n - Reference material, including OIG guidance, policies, forms, links, and\n other real-time accessible resources.\n\n\n D-3\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some OIGs published internal newsletters on a regular basis.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG offered two-way communication with the staff through an\n IG\xe2\x80\x99s blog on their intranet, and planed to also have AIGs blog according to their\n specific functional areas.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG hosted weekly video teleconferences with approximately\n ten different employees from different units. This forum provided an opportunity\n for people to get to know each other, learn about other\xe2\x80\x99s work, and form stronger\n connections within the organization.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 All employees a benchmarked OIG had access to the current projects, reports, and\n status of any audit or investigation. Status reports were openly shared and discussed\n to foster greater transparency and communication within the organization.\n Employee inputs from all levels were valued, and policy changes were proposed by\n all levels.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The intranet at a benchmarked OIG was used at least weekly by most staff and\n served as a communication mechanism and a performance support tool, offering\n newsletters from the IG, guidance, forms, and links.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG created a system of weekly reporting sharing employee\n promotions, status of new and available work and positions, new hires, as well as\n personal celebrations (e.g., birthdays, marriages, and births).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG met with each division/group head every week to discuss\n progress of open cases and to review a multi-colored spreadsheet to visually\n illustrate progress with audits and work streams.\n\nExternal Communication\n\nShared Practices\nInterviewees stressed the need to maintain effective communications with stakeholders to\nincrease transparency, to improve relationships and credibility with stakeholders, and to\nmaintain OIG independence.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many benchmarked OIGs stressed the importance of launching educational\n outreach to stakeholders to clarify the role and responsibility of the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A majority of benchmarked OIGs noted that open lines of communication between\n the IG and Department/agency leadership are crucial, and that the IG engaged with\n leadership regularly to discuss emerging or potential issues that may warrant IG\n involvement.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 External lines of communication were maintained with Congressional staffers by\n the IG, the Deputy, and other senior level executives. Some OIGs have a dedicated\n Congressional liaison, while others assign that responsibility to a member of the\n senior team. Regardless of the structure, the OIGs all share a common practice of\n ongoing, frequent engagement with Hill staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIGs responded to all Congressional requests in a timely fashion.\n\n\n\n D-4\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG worked hard to develop candid and productive working\n relationships with key Senate and Congressional Staff and feels comfortable\n reaching out to them with requests for assistance on challenging issues.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG publically posted its reports on the web concurrently with\n delivery to Congress, and reached out to Congressional stakeholders upon the\n release of each report with an offer to brief them. This engaged OIG staff and kept\n the Hill informed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In addition to presenting at board meetings, one benchmarked OIG also distributed\n a written outstanding issues report quarterly to its Board and the agency senior\n management, so that each group knew what the other knew\n\n\nQuality Work Processes\nAll interviewees noted that the OIG needs to follow consistent, commonly accepted work\nprocesses, and that OIG work products should be accessible to staff within the entire\noffice and adhere to quality standards.\n\nShared Practices\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many OIGs developed and updated an operations manual that specified work\n practices within the office and followed professional standards (e.g., adhere to the\n Yellow Book standards). The operational manual was made available to all staff\n through the OIG intranet.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The IG firmly communicated the expectation that the office will follow the Yellow\n Book (or other applicable guidance), and that all staff are expected to adhere to that\n direction.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality assurance was built into the work processes, including check lists, criteria\n for ensuring adherence to the guidance, and different levels of review and\n signatures (supervisory and team leader review, legal review, and IG review).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management tools were widely used in benchmarked OIGs to track work status; all\n work was saved on an OIG-specific shared system (i.e., the system is separate from\n the Department, but accessible to all OIG staff).\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG undertook a major revision of its standard operating\n procedures during a time of organizational change. It tasked each field office to\n write a specific chapter of the manual with each chapter focused on a specific task\n or topic. The AIG then compiled the chapters and conducted a master edit before\n signing off and distributing the guidance. The engagement of all staff in the\n development of internal procedural guidance increased support for and\n understanding of the procedures across the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG uses ProLaw to measure time reporting and milestones.\n\n\n\n D-5\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\nPolicy Development and Updates\nAll interviewees noted that OIGs need to establish structured, consistent, and current\ninternal policies/guidance across the organization.\n\nShared Practices\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policy development typically occurred within the functional areas, with authority\n for policy updates residing with either the AIG for that area, or the Deputy IG.\n Ultimately all official policy is signed off by the IG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 To ensure that internal policies remain current, interviewees emphasized the need\n to actively monitor information from CIGIE, OMB, GAO, and other external\n sources for possible impacts on OIG work (e.g., updates to the Yellow Book,\n relevant government-wide policy changes or legislation, etc.)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some OIGs engaged in a vetting process within functional areas and distributed\n draft policy for comments.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many of the larger OIGs maintained an administrative group that plays a role in\n policy development, though none described this function as playing a key role in\n the process or as having final authority. Development of content resided within the\n functional areas to draw on the expertise of the staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Almost all interviewees noted that their policies, forms, links, and other relevant\n work guidance are made available on their intranets.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG maintained a top-down/bottom-up process for policy\n development and updates. The AIG drafted an update or potential change to work\n process, and then distributed the draft to the field offices for detailed review and\n comment. This review focused on refining the details of the policy and noting any\n concerns or challenges. Comments were then collected by the AIG, who drafted\n and issued the final policy updates. Final policies were distributed formally with a\n signed instruction from the AIG to update the existing policy manual.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The AIGs within one benchmarked OIG initiated the process of developing internal\n process for their staffs. Counsel has taken the role of reviewer and compiler of all\n policies (a task assignment from their recent strategic planning effort, and not an\n inherent or routine role for Counsel). The IG ultimately reviewed and signed off on\n all policies.\n\nOIG Independence\n\nAll interviewees noted that independence of the OIG is central to its ability to carry out\neffective oversight.\n\nShared Practices\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 All OIGs interviewed indicated they had little or no difficulty with maintaining\n their independence.\n\n\n D-6\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Independence was maintained and enforced through education of stakeholders (e.g.,\n agency leadership, Congress, professional associations, grantees) about the roles\n and responsibilities of the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A majority of interviewees highlighted the importance of maintaining ongoing,\n transparent engagement with Congressional staff and Department/agency\n leadership. The IG engaged stakeholders in discussions on issues of concern, but\n the OIG maintained the final decision-making authorities and did not take direction\n from these stakeholders.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIGs relied on Agencies/Departments for discrete portions of their support\n functions. Most of the larger OIGs maintained separate IT and HR capabilities, and\n used Department resources only to process payroll or maintain master employee\n records. Some benchmarking interviewees suggested that an official contractor\n memorandum of understanding (MOU) should be established between OIG and the\n Department for shared services so that OIG independence would not be\n compromised.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIGs noted that adhering to consistent, quality work processes and standards was a\n good way to maintain OIG independence.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Because it is such a contractor-dependent department, one benchmarked OIG\n conducted extensive outreach with various external organizations, including\n professional associations, about the role of the IG. The outreach was conducted\n primarily by Investigations, but sometimes joint briefings with Inspections and\n Evaluations were offered.\n\nProcesses Guiding Cross-Functional Teams\nCross-functional teams were a common practice in benchmarked OIGs to ensure that\nappropriate expertise is brought to complex efforts and resources are properly aligned.\n\nShared Practices\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Larger OIGs have established standing cross-functional divisions. These divisions\n focused on high-profile or complex issues that require joint efforts of both Audit\n and Investigations, such as issues identified by the Secretary or other high ranking\n officials, politically sensitive issues that have broad impacts or related to national\n security.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Smaller OIGs used cross-functional teams on an ad hoc basis to address specific\n time sensitive issues. It was noted that cross-functional teams created without a\n specific project or issue to address were less successful.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many OIGs had a dedicated, cross-functional American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Acct (ARRA) team.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n\n\n\n D-7\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG maintained an Oversight and Review Division, which was a\n cross-functional group that oversees sensitive allegations involving employees\n (usually from a high-level request) and conducted systemic reviews of agency\n programs.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG created teams of auditors and investigators to work on\n specific projects, which had the added benefit of improving internal\n communication, and breaking down functional silos within the OIG.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG had cross-functional teams for ARRA, (National Oceanic\n and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and Enforcement work,\n program audits, and contract and grant work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG assigned a member of the legal team members to each\n audit. This attorney attended the entrance conference, reviewed the project plans to\n understand the scope and issues related to the audit, and consulted with the team\n lead. They were the legal \xe2\x80\x9cpoint person\xe2\x80\x9d throughout the life of that audit.\n\nHuman Capital Management\n\nThe benchmarked OIGs did not face the same challenges currently faced by Amtrak OIG\nin terms of hiring challenges and a potentially large number of pending retirements. Thus,\nhuman capital management was not explored in depth with these interviewees, but the\nfollowing findings were distilled from the overall conversations.\n\nOne benchmarked OIG has increased its overall staff size in order to bring in fresh new\ntalent. Another benchmarked OIG experienced a major turnover in staffing within the\noffice of Investigations in 1995, and the OIG overall does not have either high attrition or\ndifficulty attracting high quality candidates. Two benchmarked OIGs noted they have\ntaken advantage of the downturn in the economy over the past two years and are\nrecruiting staff who might otherwise seek employment in the private sector.\n\nShared Practices\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some interviewees stressed the importance of recruiting and actively engaging\n new employees. New employees typically became part of official mentoring\n programs, and were given a checklist of first year expectations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Different retention strategies were established in benchmarked OIGs, including:\n o Robust, ongoing training programs to develop staff professional skills;\n o Assignments that allow \xe2\x80\x9cstars\xe2\x80\x9d to progress and stretch;\n o Rotation of staff into HQ and field offices to develop institutional knowledge,\n technical skills, and leadership capabilities;\n o Cross-functional teams to expose high performers to new areas;\n o Individual development plans with training requirements and objectives; and\n o Recognizing and rewarding high-performance employees.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many interviewees stressed the needs of establishing criteria for expected\n performance and utilizing pay-for-performance incentives.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewees discussed the importance of adhering to consistent job titles and\n utilizing standard job descriptions in order to compare staff performance.\n\n\n D-8\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In many OIGs, ongoing training was provided to staff members at all levels to\n ensure that staff had the skills to take on high-level work and follow standards.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG hosted an orientation session every 6 months for new\n employees. The IG also met with every new employee individually to forge a\n personal connection.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG disseminated 50-60 awards per year (among a staff of\n 450) as part of an annual public award ceremony\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In one benchmarked OIG, each auditor had an individualized training plan that\n was completed by their supervisor/office head.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG had a mentor program within the Investigation group.\n They assigned mentors to new staff (GS-7) and prepared a checklist of 25-40\n items that must be completed within the first year. When an employee reached\n the GS-13 level he or she was encouraged to become a \xe2\x80\x9cRelief Agent in Charge,\xe2\x80\x9d\n who served as an acting supervisor and received leadership training.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The leadership at one benchmarked OIG reported taking part in new hire\n orientation by introducing his or her functional responsibilities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG assigned mentor/mentee relationships that remain in place\n for three years. Auditors were sent to the IG community for training and have a\n three-year mentoring program.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG has found tremendous value in rewarding high-quality\n work with monetary bonuses and extra paid time off.\n\nPerformance Management\nOnly a few of the interviews explored this topic in depth as all IGs interviewed indicated\nthat effective performance measurement was an area in which they were all currently\ntrying to improve.\nShared Practices\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It was agreed that practical and effective performance metrics should include both\n quantitative and qualitative measures.\n o All benchmarked OIGs collected and reported on the statutory measures, such\n as the number of recommendations issued, the number of reports issued, the\n number of Congressional testimonies, the number of indictments and\n convictions.\n o OIGs recognized the need to consider meaningful subjective measures, as\n quantitative measures alone are inadequate indicators of the actual impacts of\n OIG work.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Some OIGs solicited feedback from stakeholders on the quality of OIG\n recommendations as an indicator of their performance.\n\nSpecific Examples\n\n\n\n D-9\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG considered feedback from the Department/agency leadership\n as an indication of their performance. They considered fewer requests to testify\n before Congress a positive outcome and an indication of the strength of their reports.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The AIG for Investigations within one benchmarked OIG cited several outcome\n measures with quantified goals (e.g., 70% acceptance rate of cases accepted for\n prosecution). These are clearly related to the quality of the processes that guide the\n prioritization and conduct of the work.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG received considerable stakeholder feedback, and engaged the\n stakeholder before a report was published. Recommendations were reviewed for\n \xe2\x80\x9creasonableness\xe2\x80\x9d to ensure they were actionable and more likely to be implemented\n\xe2\x80\xa2 One benchmarked OIG received considerable stakeholder feedback, and engaged the\n stakeholder before a report was published. Recommendations were reviewed for\n \xe2\x80\x9creasonableness\xe2\x80\x9d to ensure they were actionable and more likely to be implemented\n\n\n\n\n D-10\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n\n Benchmark Interviewees\n\n\nLisa Allen Chief of Staff, DOC OIG\nAnn Eilers AIG, Office of Audit and Evaluation, DOC OIG\nGlenn Fine Inspector General, DOJ OIG\nWade Green Acting Deputy Inspector General/General Counsel, DOC OIG\nJohn Hartman AIG, Investigations, DOE OIG\nRickey Hass AIG, Audits, DOE OIG\nDavid Kotz Inspector General, SEC OIG\nRichard Moore Inspector General, TVA OIG\nCynthia Schnedar Deputy Inspector General, DOJ OIG\nBen Wagner Deputy Inspector General, TVA OIG\nTodd Zinser Inspector General, DOC OIG\n\n\n\n\n D-11\n\x0c Appendix E: Baseline Summary\n\nCurrent State Case for Change Future State\n\n\xc2\x83 OIG historically had minimal \xc2\x83 New IG and leadership team hail from high- \xc2\x83 Has effective internal communication strategies that allow all OIG\n communication between and performing OIGs; can educate and staff to be informed and invested in achieving a high-performance,\n among Executive team and communicate \xe2\x80\x9cwhat a successful OIG does\xe2\x80\x9d high-accountability organizational mission.\n functional groups to Amtrak, OIG employees, and stakeholders \xc2\x83 Has constructive relationships with Amtrak and Congressional\n\xc2\x83 New members of Executive \xc2\x83 Culture of fear and anxiety is not healthy or stakeholders that enable it to gather and share information about\n team have been well received by sustainable potential areas of risk, while maintaining independence and\n staff, and IG made a good \xc2\x83 Many OIG employees express desire to do transparency.\n number of early wins that won higher-quality work that they can take pride \xc2\x83 Has a work planning and prioritization process that engages\n him credibility with stakeholders in, and welcome learning about OIG best stakeholders in identifying and reducing areas of perceived risk,\n practices and fully assesses the nature, scope and inherent risks of Amtrak\n\xc2\x83 Staff waiting to see what\n changes leadership plans to \xc2\x83 Investigators\xe2\x80\x99 firearms were revoked; programs and operations.\n undertake. Staff feel they have minimally passed CIGIE peer review; lack of \xc2\x83 Consistently follows commonly accepted work practices and\n clarity about need for Amtrak OIG since DOT standards both within functional areas and across locations. Work\n received little communication OIG is viewed as strong\xe2\x80\xa6.OIG needs to\n about vision & next steps, so adheres to established quality standards and, as appropriate, is\n change lest it be taken over accessible and transparent to OIG staff.\n there is fear about anticipated\n change and job security \xc2\x83 Has an independent and transparent relationship with its\n CASE FOR stakeholders, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the IG Act\n\xc2\x83 Recognized need by OIG staff CHANGE\n ROADMAP\n and applicable industry standards. Each stakeholder group has a\n and stakeholders that OIG needs FUTURE\n CURRENT STATE\n clear understanding and a practical, applied definition of what it\n to start doing higher-value work\n BA\n\n\n\n\n STATE means to have transparent interactions with an independent OIG.\n RR\n\n\n\n\n of impact to Amtrak, and to\n IE\n\n\n\n\n \xc2\x83 Maintains and applies current, accurate and consistent policy\n RS\n\n\n\n\n follow consistent, quality\n across the office; has a process to monitor changes in the external\n processes\n environment that affect its work practices and a mechanism to\n\xc2\x83 OIG has had limited\n communication with Barriers incorporate those changes into internal policy; and makes all\n guidance easily accessible to staff.\n stakeholders. Stakeholders \xe2\x80\x93 \xc2\x83 Attracts and retrains high-performing employees; has consistent\n \xc2\x83 Culture of limited communication and\n both Amtrak and Hill - feel that \xe2\x80\x9cinformation/resource hoarding\xe2\x80\x9d job titles and job descriptions, and has in place training plans and\n historically they have been performance management plans that link individual performance\n alerted to issues too late \xc2\x83 Perception that different OIG staff might\n have different agendas; despite vocalized to OIG objectives.\n\xc2\x83 Independence of OIG and support for new OIG direction, all employees \xc2\x83 Has performance metrics that reflect the requirements of the IG\n relationship with the Board has might not be willing to make necessary Act, meet the expectations of GAO and Congress, reflect the\n been strengthened since IG changes value of the OIG work to Amtrak; and aligned with OIG strategic\n hire\xe2\x80\xa6need to institutionalize \xc2\x83 While recognized need to do more strategic goals. These metrics are integrated into the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s operating and\n processes so no \xe2\x80\x9cslippage\xe2\x80\x9d work, anxiety about what this means for job performance management systems.\n security and day to day routines\n \xc2\x83 Many OIG near retirement and may not\n welcome changes\n\x0c Appendix F\n\n\n Appendix F\n Crosswalk to Strategic Goal Six\n\n STRATEGIC GOAL 6\n LEADING BY EXAMPLE AS A MODEL OIG BENCHMARK AREAS\n ORGANIZATION.\n (OIG OPERATIONS)\n Deliver timely quality products and services that\nGoal 6.1 add value to the Board, management, and the\n Congress.\n Conduct risk assessments of Amtrak programs to Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 a develop appropriate strategies for investigative or\n audit coverage.\n Prepare a risk-based project plan to determine the Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 b\n priorities of OIG activities.\n Assure that all OIG products address the objective(s), Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 c\n meet the highest quality standards, and are timely. Quality Work Processes\n Establish and implement a process to track and Work Planning and Prioritization\n follow-up on OIG findings, recommendations, and External Communication\nGoal 6.1 d\n advice to Amtrak, and Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s response or\n implementation.\n Update policies and procedures manuals to include all Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 e applicable professional standards and enhanced Quality Work Processes\n internal quality assurance programs.\n Respond to inquiries and complaints in a timely and Quality Work Processes\nGoal 6.1 f\n effective manner. External Communications\n Operate a hotline to receive complaints of fraud, Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 g waste, abuse, and mismanagement as well as Quality Work Processes\n whistleblower complaints.\n Conduct training in fraud awareness and the role of Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 h the OIG. Human Capital Management\n External Communications\n Investigate and resolve allegations of criminal and Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.1 i administrative misconduct or fraud efficiently and\n thoroughly.\nGoal 6.2 Strengthen OIG Human Resource Management.\n Assure that the OIG staff possesses the skills and Human Capital Management\n experience to accomplish the OIG mission through\nGoal 6.2 a\n sustained training and career development\n opportunities.\n Develop and implement a comprehensive recruiting Human Capital Management\n program that attracts a diverse population with the\nGoal 6.2 b knowledge, skills, abilities, and expertise necessary to\n make meaningful contributions to the OIG.\n\n\n\n\n F-1\n\x0c Appendix F\n\n\n\n Create and maintain an environment within the OIG Human Capital Management\n that attracts, develops, and retains a talented and Internal Communications\nGoal 6.2 c\n diverse workforce and where employees feel valued,\n appreciated, and respected.\n Develop and update goal-based and results oriented Human Capital Management\n performance plans that are aligned with the OIG Internal Communications\nGoal 6.2 d\n strategic vision that creates and sustain a results-\n oriented, high-performance culture within the OIG.\n Enhance internal and external communication,\nGoal 6.3\n coordination, and information sharing.\n Continue to improve relationships and External Communications\nGoal 6.3 a communications between the OIG and Amtrak\n management.\n Establish collaborative relationships and regular External Communications\nGoal 6.3 b communications with Congress, the Board of\n Directors, and regulatory oversight bodies.\n Enhance coordination and communication among the Internal Communications\nGoal 6.3 c General Counsel, Audit, I&E, M&P, and Policy Management and Updates\n Investigations groups within the OIG. Quality Work Processes\n Improve OIG communications and work products, Internal Communications\nGoal 6.3 d including working papers, reports, memoranda, and External Communications\n correspondence. Quality Work Processes\n Promote the Hotline as a tool for reporting fraud, External Communications\nGoal 6.3 e waste, and abuse through OIG publications and\n brochures, the Internet, and company-wide exposure.\nGoal 6.4 Continue to Improve OIG Business Processes.\n Identify efficiencies and opportunities to streamline Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.4 a OIG internal processes to conform with the OIG Quality Work Processes\n community and Federal government best practices.\n Increase/expand participation in OIG community External Communications\nGoal 6.4 b\n activities, e.g., CIGIE, etc.\n Develop milestones and metrics for measuring Performance Measurement\nGoal 6.4 c timeliness and effectiveness of internal and external Quality Work Processes\n operations.\n Develop and implement a robust strategic planning Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.4 d\n process.\n Identify the needs of stakeholders and provide fact- Work Planning and Prioritization\nGoal 6.4 e based, independent, objective, and high quality External Communications\n products and services to meet them.\n Leverage OIG\'s cutting-edge technology\nGoal 6.5:\n infrastructure.\n Provide the support structure and technological tools Policy Management and Updates\n and equipment that will enable OIG staff to Quality Work Processes\nGoal 6.5 a\n effectively and efficiently produce quality and timely\n products.\n\n\n F-2\n\x0c Appendix G\n\n\n Appendix G\n Bibliography\n\nChief Financial Officers Council and President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency,\n \xe2\x80\x9cBest Practices Guide for Coordinating the Preparation and Audit of Federal\n Financial Statements.\xe2\x80\x9d September 2007.\n\nCouncil of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. \xe2\x80\x9cA Progress Report to the\n President (Fiscal Year 2008).\xe2\x80\x9d September 8, 2009.\n\nDepartment of Education, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cFiscal Year 2010 Work Plan:\n Promoting Accountability and Transparency.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nDepartment of Energy, Office of Inspector General, PCIE Audit Committee, \xe2\x80\x9cOffices\xe2\x80\x99 of\n Inspector General Best Practices.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nDepartment of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cReport on the\n External Quality Control Review of the Audit Organization of the U.S.\n Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General.\xe2\x80\x9d December 2, 2009\n\nDepartment of Justice, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cImproving the Grant Management\n Process.\xe2\x80\x9d February 2009.\n\nDepartment of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cStrategic Plan\xe2\x80\x9d September,\n 2009.\n\nDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, Hearing: \xe2\x80\x9cOversight Efforts\n of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Inspector General: Issues,\n Problems, and Best Practices at the VA.\xe2\x80\x9d Serial No. 110-4. February 15, 2007.\n\nEnvironmental Protection Agency, \xe2\x80\x9cCooperation with the Office of Inspector General.\xe2\x80\x9d\n August 7, 2009.\n\nFarm Credit Administration, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cThe National Railroad\n Passenger Corporation (Corporation or Amtrak) and its Office of Inspector\n General.\xe2\x80\x9d March 17, 2010.\n\nFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cStrategic Plan\n (1999-2004).\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nGeneral Accountability Office, \xe2\x80\x9cActivities of the Amtrak Inspector General.\xe2\x80\x9d March 4,\n 2005.\n\nGeneral Accountability Office, \xe2\x80\x9cAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT\n ACT: GAO\xe2\x80\x99s Role in Helping to Ensure Accountability and Transparency.\xe2\x80\x9d\n March 5, 2009.\n\n\n G-1\n\x0c Appendix G\n\nGeneral Accountability Office, \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Auditing Standards.\xe2\x80\x9d GAO-07-731G, July\n 2007.\n\nGeneral Accountability Office, \xe2\x80\x9cINSPECTORS GENERAL, Office Consolidation and\n Related Issues.\xe2\x80\x9d GAO-02-575, August 15, 2002.\n\nGeneral Accountability Office, \xe2\x80\x9cINSPECTORS GENERAL, Independent Oversight of\n Financial Regulatory Agencies.\xe2\x80\x9d GAO-09-524T, March 25, 2009.\n\nLegal Services Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cSystem Review Report on the\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General Audit Organization.\xe2\x80\x9d September 30, 2009.\n\nNational Procurement Fraud Task Force, Grant Fraud Committee, \xe2\x80\x9cA Guide to Grant\n Oversight and Best Practices for Combating Grant Fraud.\xe2\x80\x9d February 2009.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cCSX On-Time\n Performance Incentives: Inaccurate Invoices and Lack of Amtrak Management\n Review Lead to Overpayments.\xe2\x80\x9d March 30, 2010.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cHuman Capital\n Management.\xe2\x80\x9d Evaluation Report E-09-03. May 15, 2009.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cOversight of\n ARRA-Funded Initiatives\xe2\x80\x94Program Charter.\xe2\x80\x9d April 15, 2009.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cSemiannual\n Report to Congress (4/01/09-9/30/09).\xe2\x80\x9d September 20, 2009.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. \xe2\x80\x9cStrategic Plan\n Fiscal Years 2010-2014.\xe2\x80\x9d March 16, 2010.\n\nNational Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General. Testimony:\n \xe2\x80\x9cOpportunities and Challenges Facing Amtrak in FY 2011 and Beyond.\xe2\x80\x9dApril 29,\n 2010.\n\nPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of Inspector General, Memorandum\n Report: \xe2\x80\x9cLessons Learned from FY 2005 Financial Statement Audit.\xe2\x80\x9d April 6,\n 2006.\n\nProject on Government Oversight, \xe2\x80\x9cInspectors General: Accountability is a Balancing\n Act.\xe2\x80\x9d March 20, 2009.\n\nProject On Government Oversight, \xe2\x80\x9cInspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for\n Independence.\xe2\x80\x9dFebruary 26, 2008.\n\n\n\n\n G-2\n\x0c Appendix G\n\nSmall Business Administration, Office of Inspector General, \xe2\x80\x9cStrategic Plan (Fiscal\n Years 2006-2011).\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. \xe2\x80\x9cReport on Matters Impairing the Effectiveness and\n Independence of the Office of Inspector General of the National Railroad\n Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).\xe2\x80\x9d June 18, 2009.\n\nU.S. Code, Title 5. Government Organization and Employees. Appendix Three. Inspector\n General Act of 1978 (Incorporating Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Pub.\n L. 110-409.\n\n\n\n\n G-3\n\x0c Appendix H\n\n\n Appendix H\n Amtrak OIG Organizational Assessment Panel\n\n\nJohn M. Kamensky, Chair Associate Partner, IBM Global Business Services; Senior\nFellow, IBM Center for the Business of Government. Former Deputy Director, National\nPartnership for Reinventing Government; Assistant Director, U.S. Governmental\nAccountability Office; Staff, Texas Constitutional Convention; Staff, Texas House of\nRepresentatives.\n\n\n\nCheryle A. Broom King County Auditor, King County Auditor\'s Office, State of\nWashington. Former First Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, New\nYork State Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Legislative Auditor, Washington State\nJoint Legislative Audit and Review Committee; Program Staff Director, King County\nCouncil; Citizen Participation Project Coordinator, U.S. Department of Health, Education\nand Welfare. Former positions with U.S. General Accounting Office: Evaluator;\nPerformance Audit Manager; Auditor; Program Budget Analyst; Investment Analyst.\n\n\n\nHarold I. Steinberg Technical Director, Federal, State and Local Government\nPerformance Reporting Programs, Association of Government Accountants. Former\nDeputy Controller/Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management; Member,\nFederal Accounting Standards Advisory Board; Partner-in-Charge, Federal Government\nPractice, KPMG; Associate Director for Management, U.S. Office of Management and\nBudget.\n\n\n\nRegina V.K. Williams City Manager, City of Norfolk, Virginia. Former City Manager\nand Assistant City Manager, City of San Jose, California; Senior Deputy City Manager\nand Chief of Staff, City of Richmond, Virginia; Director of Personnel and Training,\nCommonwealth of Virginia; Director of Personnel, City of Richmond, Virginia.\n\n\n\n\n H-1\n\x0c'