Detailed Information on the
Office of Labor-Management Standards Assessment

Conducting an external review of program processes to identify areas for improvement.

Working with Congress to obtain the authority to impose civil monetary penalties on organizations and individuals who fail to comply with the reporting requirements of the Act.

Implementing new performance measures for each performance goal in order to demonstrate continued improvements.

Identifying and initiating improvements to increase union member awareness and use of the Online Public Disclosure Room pursuant to recommendations from external evaluation of program.

Developing and implementing specific performance indicators to measure agency progress towards ensuring union democracy.

Measure: Percent of unions filing required reports electronically.

Explanation:OLMS is responsible for administering the union reporting and public disclosure provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of statutorily required union financial reports are critical to the public disclosure objectives of the Act to further union financial transparency, which ultimately results in improved financial integrity and democracy. The use of electronic reporting formats significantly improves the completeness and accuracy of reports made available to the public. While electronic report filing is available to all union filers, a substantial percentage of unions still submit paper reports. Electronically submitted forms are checked for acceptability upon submission and immediately posted to the agency's Internet public disclosure site. Paper submissions must be scanned prior to checking for acceptability and, if found deficient, must be returned to the union for correction. Even when the reports are acceptable, the scanning process includes some delay, causing further time lags in posting the data for public disclosure. In addition, scanning is a costly process. OLMS believes that by increasing the number and percent of unions filing annual reports electronically, OLMS can make better use of its resources through increased efficiency, and better serve public needs by providing more timely reports for disclosure. Because this is a new performance measure, OLMS is using FY 2008 to establish a baseline. Upon establishment of this baseline, OLMS will be better able to establish ambitious goals for FY 2009 and beyond.

Measure: Percent of audits that detect criminal violations.

Explanation:A principal OLMS responsibility is to administer and enforce the union financial integrity protections of the LMRDA. OLMS conducts audits to monitor LMRDA compliance and uncover embezzlements and other criminal and civil violations of the law. OLMS also conducts investigations to determine criminal violations of the LMRDA, primarily union funds embezzlement. Through better targeting of audits, OLMS seeks to improve its ability to identify instances of fraud. OLMS success in better identifying instances of fraud will be reflected by an increase in the percentage of audits that result in a criminal finding. As a control, OLMS will track the percentage of criminal cases opened that get referred for prosecution, thus creating a quality standard for this measure. OLMS believes that this measure acts as a viable proxy for the outcome goal of reducing fraud. By identifying fraud and embezzlement, OLMS better protects union member assets, and prosecution of criminal violations may act as a deterrent. OLMS presently conducts over 700 audits annually and is using FY 2008 to establish a baseline measure. This baseline will enable OLMS to establish realistic yet ambitious goals for FY 2009 and beyond, while also providing valuable insight into strategies used to better target audits. By meeting its goals in this area, OLMS will increase union financial integrity and make more efficient use of its resources.

Measure: Average number of days to resolve union member complaints concerning union officer elections.

Explanation:Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, union members have the right to file a complaint with the agency concerning union officer elections. Timely resolution of these complaints is a paramount goal of the Act, as evidenced by the 60-day statutory time limit imposed on the agency for filing election enforcement actions in court. Pursuant to this legislative intent to provide for an expeditious resolution of union member complaints, OLMS' goal is to reduce the average number of days to process a complaint and thus advance the union democracy protections of the Act. Using available data from 2008 and prior years, OLMS will establish a baseline measure, allowing the agency to set goals for 2009 and beyond. OLMS also expects that the establishment of a baseline will provide indicators for possible improvements in the OLMS processes and allow OLMS to identify efficiencies that can be obtained.

Measure: Union receipts audited per staff day.

Explanation:A major component of the OLMS program under the LMRDA is the protection of member assets. As one means of protecting these assets, OLMS conducts over 700 audits of union finances annually. Resources allocated to this function directly support the OLMS program goal of ensuring union financial integrity. This efficiency measure focuses the impact of OLMS' audit program. The numerator, union dollars protected, is the total annual receipts of the unions that undergo an audit. The denominator is the total days spent by investigators on audits.

Measure: Percent of unions that file an annual financial report meeting standards of acceptability for public disclosure

Explanation:This measure tracks the Office of Labor-Management Standards' (OLMS) success in securing compliance with the union reporting requirements of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA). The timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of statutorily required union financial reports are critical because compliant reporting results in better public disclosure for union members and others, furthering the union democracy and financial integrity objectives of the LMRDA. Through this measure, OLMS established minimum standards by which a filing would be judged acceptable for public disclosure. These minimum standards help ensure that reports are complete and consistent with reporting requirements. Through various strategies, including promotion of electronic filing and compliance assistance, OLMS has worked toward increasing the percentage of unions filing acceptable reports. These strategies have resulted in increased acceptability and because of the high level of compliance achieved through this goal, OLMS will replace this measure in 2009 with a new measure that will report the percent of unions filing the required reports electronically. As noted in the explanation of the union transparency measure, electronic report filing greatly increases the acceptability and completeness of union reports, while simultaneously resulting in timelier public access to these reports. Both outcomes will increase transparency while providing OLMS with a better measure for driving program outputs and outcomes.

Measure: Percent of unions with indicators of fraud

Explanation:A principal OLMS responsibility is to administer and enforce union financial integrity protections of the LMRDA. OLMS conducts audits to monitor LMRDA compliance and uncover embezzlements and other criminal and civil violations of the law using investigative audit procedures. The present means of identifying fraud for the current performance goal is via a study of a random sample of unions. This performance goal indicates an already low incidence of fraud (about 7 percent compared to a ten percent corporate fraud rate). OLMS believes that there is an opportunity cost to the agency in continuing the current random audit measure, in that resources presently used to measure fraud can be used more effectively to pursue fraud where there are prior indications that fraud has occurred. Therefore, beginning in 2009, OLMS will replace this performance measure with a new measure tracking how well OLMS identifies and investigates incidences of fraud. This measure will be more useful to the agency in effectively administering its responsibilities. OLMS expects that the new measure (percent of audits that detect criminal violations) will better measure OLMS' effectiveness in advancing union financial integrity protections.

Measure: Percent of established standards for union democratic elections met.

Explanation:OLMS enforces LMRDA standards for democratic union officer elections. OLMS provides compliance assistance and undertakes enforcement activities to help ensure that the LMRDA standards are followed. To date, these activities have allowed OLMS to achieve a high rate of compliance with the LMRDA standards for democratic elections (above 92%). OLMS will continue its compliance assistance and enforcement activities to ensure compliance with standards for democratic union officer elections. In order to drive further improvement in union democracy, OLMS will replace this performance measure in FY 2009 with a new goal seeking more expeditious resolution of union member complaints (see timeliness measure for union officer elections). By more effectively handling election investigations and more expeditiously resolving these complaints, union democracy will be increased.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and enforces many provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act 0f 1959 (LMRDA) and related laws enacted by the Congress to promote democracy, transparency, and financial integrity in private sector unions and their affiliates. The LMRDA frames the rights of union members to voice their views and the processes whereby they may freely elect their officers; codifies the fiduciary duties of union leaders; requires financial recordkeeping and reporting by unions, their officers and employees, and relevant others; vests the Secretary of Labor with investigative and prosecutorial authority (as well as with authority to engage the services of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) in enforcement of the Act); and provides for public access to the information reported by unions. OLMS administers similar provisions under the Civil Service Reform Act, which governs unions representing federal employees. OLMS monitors, investigates, and assists compliance, and in appropriate cases coordinates closely with the DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG), DOJ, and other federal agencies to prosecute criminal violations of the LMRDA and/or related federal laws. Under various federally sponsored transportation programs, OLMS is also charged with reviewing and certifying that States and localities receiving federal transit grants have fair and equitable arrangements in place to protect transit employees who may be negatively impacted when those grants are used in the acquisition, improvement, or operation of a mass transit system.

Evidence: : Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 USC §§ 401 et seq., www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/lmrda-act.htm; Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 USC §§ 7101 et seq., www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/complcsra.htm; 49 USC §5333(b) (also known as Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act), www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/statute-sect5333b.htm (making fair and equitable employment arrangements, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, a condition of federal transit funding); OLMS regulations appearing in 29 CFR Parts 401-459, www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/esa/Title_29/Chapter_IV.htm; DOL, Office of the Assist. Sec. For Policy, Employment Law Guide for Union Members, LMRDA Page, www.dol.gov/asp/programs/guide/unions.htm; DOL FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), Employment Standards Administration (ESA) section, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2004/goal2_1.pdf (describing OLMS program activities); General Accounting Office (GAO) Rept. GAO/HEHS-00-116 6/2000, www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00116.pdf (explaining the Act's provisions and describing OLMS activities); Fact Sheet on the Office of Labor-Management Standards, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/olms.htm; Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Justice and Labor Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Crimes and Civil Enforcement Actions Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereinafter MOU between DOL and DOJ)(January 18, 2005)(investigative authority is divided between DOL and DOJ, but prosecutorial authority rests with DOJ; DOJ will prosecute criminal violations under the Act, and will institute civil enforcement actions on behalf of the Secretary of Labor, but has some discretion in the cases it will bring forward).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: On the heels of a Congressional investigation, and hearings that over many months detailed serious, systemic problems in the nation's labor unions, the LMRDA was enacted in 1959 to prevent corrupt or abusive practices by union leaders and employees; help enrich, encourage, and inform the participation of union members; and promote self-governance. Forty-six years later, agencies across the federal government continue to identify and combat a discouragingly high level of union embezzlement and racketeering. The infiltration of unions by organized crime, self-dealing by some union personnel, and financial non-compliance driven simply by legal ignorance or misinformation all continue to plague labor organizations today. Nationwide, OLMS' work governs labor organizations with memberships totaling in the millions. In addition to its civil docket, each year OLMS investigates and helps prosecute a large number of criminal cases. The Congress supports and encourages DOL's continuing efforts to clarify and enforce financial reporting standards for labor organizations.

Evidence: LMRDA, 29 USC at § 401 (congressional findings and need for legislation); OLMS 2004 Program Highlights, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/highlights_04.htm ("During FY 2004, OLMS-initiated investigations led to 111 criminal convictions for crimes such as embezzlement, filing false reports, destroying records, bank fraud, theft, forgery, and federal racketeering.");Recent Criminal Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/enforc_actions.htm; Recent Civil Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/civil_actions.htm; GAO Rept. GAO/HEHS-00-116 6/2000, www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00116.pdf ("As of February 2000, more than 31,000 private and federal employee labor unions with about 13.5 million members nationwide and total receipts estimated at over $15.3 billion were subject to LMRDA or related legislation"; stating that renewed concerns about impediments to union democracy had motivated a series of congressional hearings from 1998-2000); House Judiciary Ctee., Administration Efforts Against the Influence of Organized Crime in the Laborers' Internat'l Union of North American (January 1997), www.ipsn.org/court_cases/hearings_crime_sub-committee.htm, (in early 1990s, DOJ, DOL and FBI compiled over one million pages of evidence to support a 212-page civil racketeering complaint against union and a number of its officers); Views and Estimates for FY 2005, House Ctee. on Education and the Wkforce, 108th Cong. 2nd Session (February 27, 2004), www.house.gov/ed_workforce/publications/views108th2nd.htm (Committee "supports and endorses" DOL's effort to promote transparency of union activities for union members, which is also a Committee priority). But see Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1058 10/19/1995, How to Close Down the Department of Labor, www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=31673 (proposing elimination of the office).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program has been in existence in one form or another since 1959, when it was established to enforce the financial reporting provisions of the LMRDA. No other private or government program oversees or enforces these statutory requirements, although OLMS activities support and benefit from the work of other federal agencies and programs working toward the common goal of a sound union system that legitimately represents the views and interests of its members, including the DOL OIG, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For example, the Secretary of Labor has exclusive authority under the Act to provide protections and remedies to certain union election violations, and under other federal statutes to certify State and local transit systems receiving federal dollars. The Act's provisions - which assign separate responsibilities to the Departments of Labor and Justice, provide flexibility for interagency collaboration, and leave it to union members to assert certain rights through legal action - and a Memorandum of Understanding in place between DOL and DOJ, which helps synchronize the activities and processes of the two agencies with respect to specific types of cases, help avoid duplication and confusion.

Evidence: OLMS History, www.dol.gov/esa/aboutesa/history/olms/olmshist.htm; LMRDA, 29 USC at §§ [cite section(s) relevant to DOL authorities/remedies described above]; 49 USC §5333(b); MOU between DOL and DOJ (in place since 1960 but renewed and revised in 2005 to return primary investigative jurisdiction over union funds embezzlement cases to DOL); Testimony of John Kotch before House Educ. And the Wkforce Subctee. on Oversight and Investigations (June 17, 1998) edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/105th/oi/teamsters616-1798/kotch.htm (DOL and DOJ share responsibility for investigation and prosecution of crimes and civil enforcement actions under the LMRDA; OLMS refers criminal conduct to DOJ, and cooperates with or refers to DOL OIG organized criminal activity in the context of labor organizations).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: OLMS lacks sufficient enforcement tools to help it enforce the Act's financial and fiduciary provisions fully and effectively. For example, the program lacks legislative authority to impose appropriate civil penalties on organizations and individuals that either fail to file mandatory reports on time or fail to file them at all; each year, the program spends valuable time and resources convincing unions to report their finances completely and accurately. During congressional budget and legislative hearings, senior DOL officials have stated that this authority would help improve compliance with the Act. House hearings held during two separate Congresses have found that the lack of this authority has historically limited the effectiveness of OLMS' enforcement efforts and, in the 108th Congress, the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations favorably reported a bill to grant this authority. Although the Administration has deferred to the Congress to introduce such legislation, OLMS will work more closely with congressional committees and other key stakeholders to further the development and passage a legislative proposal.

Evidence: Congressional markup notes and related information on House committee consideration of H.R. 993, to authorize OLMS civil monetary penalties, can be found at edworkforce.house.gov/markups/108th/eer/mueer.htm. Materials on House committee consideration of H.R. 4054, the equivalent proposal introduced during the 107th Congress, can be found at edworkforce.house.gov/markups/107th/eer/mueer.htm. DOJ has never prosecuted a union for LMRDA reporting lapses, and former Deputy Secretary of Labor Cameron Findlay stated during a House hearing that the Department "does not have sufficient enforcement tools to punish wrongdoers." edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/workforce/uniondemocracy/factsheet062403.htm. Also see Testimony of OLMS Deputy Director Lary Yud before the H. Educ. and the Workforce Subctee. on Employer-Employee Relations (June 24, 2003), www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/108th/eer/uniondem062403/yud.htm ("many observers believe OLMS does not have sufficient to protect and inform union members"; on the issue of civil monetary penalties, "the Administration supports the concepts embodied in H.R. 993" and is "closely reviewing the [bill] to determine whether additional authorities would help facilitate compliance and protect union members"); Testimony of DOL Asst. Sec. Victoria Lipnic before the H. Approps. Subctee. on Labor and related agencies (April 5, 2005), www.dol.gov/esa/media/congress/20050405_lipnic.htm (to encourage regulated community to comply with statutory filing deadlines, FY 2006 President's Budget supports proposals to authorize OLMS to impose civil monetary penalties on unions and others that fail to file required financial reports on a timely basis; ; intent is to improve compliance, not penalize inadvertent lapses in filing reports); Testimony of Labor Sec. Elaine Chao before H. Approps. Subctee. on Labor and related agencies (March 17, 2005) www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20050317_house_appropriations.htm (budget supports legislation to authorize OLMS to impose civil money penalties on unions and others that fail to file required financial reports on a timely basis); DOL chapter included in FY 2006 President's Budget www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/labor.html ("The 2006 Budget also supports allowing OLMS to impose civil monetary penalties on unions, employers, and others that fail to file their required financial reports on a timely basis. These new penalties would strengthen DOL's ability to enforce labor laws when cooperative approaches are not enough."); DOL FY 2004 PAR, ESA section, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2004/goal2_1.pdf ("Timely public disclosure reporting remains a continuing challenge in spite of OLMS' comprehensive program efforts to correct a persistent delinquent report problem. To address this challenge, DOL supports amendment of the LMRDA to authorize civil monetary penalties for late filing.")

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: In furtherance of the authorizing statute and implementing regulations, which establish financial reporting and fiduciary obligations for unions and their leaders, program resources support OLMS' review and public posting of financial reports filed by unions and others; financial audits and criminal investigations to root out and address misuse or mismanagement of union funds; the investigation of potential irregularities in union elections; and, when needed, the oversight of remedial elections. To safeguard the nearly $16 billion dollars in union assets it oversees, OLMS would dedicate approximately 50% of its $48.8 million FY 2006 budget request to union financial integrity activities, primarily union audits, and union funds embezzlement investigations; 25% to union transparency activities, including the posting of union filings on the Internet for viewing and searching by the public; another 21% to the promotion of union democracy, principally the resolution of complaints of irregularities in union officer election complaints and the oversight of remedial elections; and the remaining 4% to the certification of transit employee protections. To improve voluntary compliance and conserve resources, the program tries to negotiate informal compliance agreements where practical, and emphasizes compliance assistance, both preventive (educational, front-end) and remedial (based on audit or complaint findings). OLMS is participating in the internal "stoplight" scorecard that DOL has initiated in FY 2005 to rate its bureaus on their compliance assistance efforts.

Evidence: See, for example, Yud, Lipnic, and Chao Testimonies (describing OLMS activities); OLMS Mission Statement (detailing program activities), www.dol.gov/esa/aboutesa/org/olms/olmsinfo.htm; OLMS Internet Public Disclosure Room, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/rrlo/lmrda.htm. OLMS offers seminars to help unions understand and better comply with reporting requirements, and provides more focused assistance, before the next regularly scheduled election, to unions that were the subject of a recent election complaint.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: OLMS' strategic goal to "ensure union financial integrity, democracy, and transparency" is furthered through two outcome measures that tie to LMRDA principles and DOL programmatic and policy priorities: (1) "increasing union financial integrity" (measured by the rate of fraud in unions randomly selected for audit), and (2) "increasing union transparency" (measured by unions' rate of compliance with technical reporting requirements known as "standards of acceptability"). These long-term measures are divided into interim (annual) targets. The integrity rate is generally measured at year's end, but the transparency rates may be gauged throughout the year. To assess and promote the efficient use of resources, OLMS will also track the level of union dollars audited each year relative to use of staff time (in terms of "full time equivalent" or "FTE" hours). This efficiency measure does not directly address the outcome of audits, but indirectly could help to deter fraud by focusing a portion of investigative resources on large, well-resourced labor unions that in some cases have not been audited in many years.

Evidence: OLMS Congressional Justifications (CJs) submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006 (tracking performance measures; explaining efficiency measure), 2005, 2004, and 2003; DOL FY 2004 PAR. Long-term measures: (1) The integrity measure is relatively new. In FY 2004, baseline data reflected a 9% rate of fraud. The program has no target for FY 2005; as explained below, the program strongly believes that taking a fraud measure from a randomly selected sample every year would significantly reduce the cost-effectiveness of audits, and proposes to track this measure every two years. For FY 2006, the program has a target of 7.5%, a significant (17%) reduction from the baseline. (2) Transparency measure: In FY 2003, baseline data showed that 73% of unions were in compliance with technical requirements for electronic filing and Internet posting; in FY 2004, the actual rate of compliance was 92% (original target 75%). The goal for FY 2005 is 95%, an ambitious target that relies, in part, on the success of the program's compliance assistance efforts (original target was 77%). The program considered but ultimately dismissed targets of 96% or higher as potentially unrealistic. The program has no target for FY 2006; it plans to establish a new baseline then due, in part, to recent, major revisions to OLMS regulations governing reporting requirements for the largest labor unions. (See DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No.196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf, establishing new requirements for LM-2 reports.) (3) Efficiency measure: The program will establish a baseline and targets for its efficiency measure in FY 2005.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: OLMS has recently established targets for both its transparency and financial integrity measures. The program has proposed several measures for union democracy, however OMB has not agreed to any of the recently proposed measures. OLMS is actively developing a rigorous measure for union democracy.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003. DOL Inspector General's Statement, 2002 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor, www.oig.dol.gov/public/topchallenges/2002.pdf ("Key to the Department's success in integrating budget and performance will be effective strategic planning, as envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the ability to improve the quality and accessibility of program and cost data[.]")

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's primary goals, as currently drafted, are clear and outcome-based, and tie to program, Departmental, and statutory priorities. OLMS will measure efficiency by tracking assets (receipts) of unions being audited in a given year against cumulative staff days used. Tracking financial integrity via the current measure requires OLMS to split its annual workload of approximately 500 audits; 50% of audits continue to be "targeted" to unions who have a poor reporting record or stand out based on other reliable risk factors while, in the remaining cases, audits are conducted on unions randomly selected from OLMS' pool. Dedicating significant staff resources to a group of audits whose outcome is uncertain - relative to the higher risk, potentially higher yield pool the program normally targets - exacts a considerable opportunity cost, motivating the program to propose a longer, two-year cycle for this measure. The program is strongly encouraged to develop an additional outcome measure for a key activity not yet covered - such as election investigations and oversight - that it can track annually and cost-effectively, and which can provide important performance information, especially when the integrity measure is in mid-cycle.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006 (tracking performance measures; explaining efficiency measure), 2005, 2004, and 2003. See Question 2.1, above, for description of long-term measures, which also serve as annual measures. Until FY 2003, the program's performance measures were somewhat different: A strategic goal of "advancing safeguards for union financial integrity and democracy and the transparency of union operations" was measured through two indicators: (1) "Improving timely filing of union financial reports that contain information sufficient for public disclosure," for which in FY 2003 OLMS' targets were: (a) to increase to 85% the "timely filing of financial reports by unions with annual receipts over $200,000"; and (b) to establish a baseline "for the percentage of filed reports that are determined to be sufficient for public disclosure." (2) "Extending LMRDA protections for unions financial integrity to a greater number of labor organizations through more effective use of investigative resources," for which in FY 2003 OLMS' target was to increase to 53% "the percentage of investigative resources applied to criminal investigations that resulted in convictions."

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: OLMS has established measures with baselines and targets for 2 of its 3 long-term goals and is actively developing a measure for the final goal. Though the program initially proposed a biennual measure for its assessment of union financial integrity , OLMS worked constructively with a contractor to measure this annually using a rolling average. The program established an ambitious set of annual targets for its union transparentcy measure, particularly given the established baseline. OLMS will work closely with OMB to establish an acceptable measure for union democracy.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program is not in a traditional partnership with the labor organizations and other regulatees whose finances it oversees. OLMS is a law enforcement body investigating civil and, frequently, criminal violations of federal law, which often places it in an adversarial position with respect to the regulated community. The program influences union decisions most often through compliance assistance (it does not issue formal guidance to governed entities); informal, persistent efforts to convince regulatees of the need to file timely and accurately; and conciliatory agreements to correct violations commonly reached only with the implicit threat or in the context of enforcement.

Evidence: See, for example, GAO Rept. GAO/GGD-97-93 7/1997, www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97093.pdf (OLMS' "principal activity is the investigation of criminal violations of the [LMRDA], including union funds embezzlement, false reporting, false records, destruction of records, labor union trusteeship crimes, failure to bond, illegal loans, and prohibited union office-holding or employment. In addition, agency investigations often identify related criminal violations of federal statutes under Title 18 of the United States Code, which are investigated under authority delegated by the U.S. Attorneys."); Recent Criminal Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/enforc_actions.htm; Recent Civil Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/civil_actions.htm.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: There is no comprehensive program evaluation on record. GAO reviewed different aspects of the program separately in 1997 and 2000, but not since. Neither the DOL OIG nor other independent entities have audited OLMS activities. A process evaluation could help to identify and address weaknesses in procedures, compliance and enforcements strategies, or program design, as well as establish a clean performance baseline against which the program could manage.

Evidence: In 2000, GAO studied OLMS processes strictly to examine - without judgment or recommendations - the allocation and use of fiscal year 1999 resources. GAO Rept. GAO/HEHS-00-116 6/2000, www.gao.gov/new.items/he00116.pdf. Also in 2000, GAO reviewed OLMS' process for certifying "labor protection" arrangements under Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. GAO/RCED-00-260 8/2000, www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00260.pdf. In 1999, GAO reviewed OLMS' plans to develop and implement an electronic reporting system (instituted in 2002) to automate and facilitate the filing and public review of union financial reports. GAO Rept. GAO/HEHS-99-63R 3/1999, archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/161860.pdf.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Like the rest of DOL, the Employment Standards Administration - of which OLMS is a part - is moving closer to an integrated accounting and performance management system that would identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day-to-day operations.

Evidence: OLMS Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2006 President's Budget; DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/strat_plan_2003-2008.htm (describing DOL's budget/performance integration efforts). DOL has taken steps to address findings by the OIG that its Managerial Cost Accounting System did not comply with federal financial management standards, and - according to the OIG - will soon be transferring ownership of the system to the bureaus to customize cost models and institutionalize the system's use. DOL Inspector General's Statement, 2004 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor, www.oig.dol.gov/public/topchallenges/2004.pdf. Also see DOL Agency Scorecard, FY 2005 Q2.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: At the program level, OLMS has taken good-faith steps toward developing a solid framework for assessing and improving program performance by developing outcome and efficiency measures, and establishing a baseline for its integrity measure based on a resource-intensive audit study. OLMS will implement its efficiency measure and establish a measure of union democracy in order to continue its improvement in correcting its strategic planning deficiencies.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003.; GAO Rept. GAO/HEHS-00-116 6/2000, www.gao.gov/new.items/he00116.pdf ("Because OLMS is statutorily required to resolve complaints about union elections in 60 days, according to OLMS officials, this activity generally supersedes activity in other areas and is OLMS' top priority."). OLMS' new efficiency measure tracks assets (receipts) of unions being audited in a given year against cumulative staff days used. DOL has taken steps to address findings by the OIG that its Managerial Cost Accounting System did not comply with federal financial management standards, and - according to the OIG - will soon be transferring ownership of the system to the bureaus to customize cost models and institutionalize the system's use. DOL Inspector General's Statement, 2004 Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of Labor, www.oig.dol.gov/public/topchallenges/2004.pdf. Also see DOL Agency Scorecard, FY 2005 Q2.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: OLMS' regulations correspond to the investigative, enforcement, and publication responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Labor by the LMRDA and other relevant authorities. OLMS initiated a comprehensive review of these regulations in 2001, when the program was developing and implementing its electronic reporting system. The program first assessed the forms and regulations for the smaller reports - including forms LM-3 and LM-4 - to determine whether changes in the form (and, hence, regulatory changes) would be required either for purposes of electronic conversion or other reasons. The program then reviewed its LM-2 form, used by the largest labor unions, in a review process of many months that - in part due to the complexity and sensitivity of the information being sought - included detailed analysis and close collaboration with the DOL Office of the Solicitor and other key stakeholders. A new OLMS regulation - finalized in October 2003 and effective on a rolling basis (based on unions' fiscal years) starting in 2005 - makes major clarifications to the LM-2 reporting requirements, creates a new T-1 form for trusts' financial information, and makes technical clarifications to Forms LM-3 and LM-4. The regulation clearly states the statutory purposes it is designed to achieve and its relationship to broad program goals (rather than specific performance measures). The program is currently reviewing its LM-30 form, used by union officers and employees to disclose potential conflicts of interest. OLMS will continue to review its forms and accompanying regulations to ensure statutory compatibility, enduring relevance, minimum burden, and ease of use. In addition to LMRDA implementing regulations, OLMS rules govern Civil Service Reform Act standards of conduct that apply to certain Federal sector unions. OLMS has also published several bulletins in the Code of Federal Regulations interpreting certain statutory definitions and requirements.

Evidence: DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf; ESA page on effective date of final LM-2 regulation, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/effectivedate.htm [to add: status of legal action]; DOL News Release 3/29/2004, www.dol-union-reports.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA2004572.htm (announcing issuance, under Executive Order 13201, of DOL final rule requiring government contractors to post union members' rights); DOL News Release 3/1/2005, www.dol-union-reports.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20050326.htm (referring to statement by OLMS official that "A number of [crimes uncovered by OLMS' work] might not have been committed if the union officers involved had been complying with their conflict-of-interest (LM-30) obligations In our ongoing effort to strengthen union financial transparency and integrity on behalf of union members, the department is reviewing the LM-30 reporting requirement and will be proposing ways to modernize and improve these reports."). CFR interpretative bulletins provide guidance on the definition of 'labor organization' within the meaning of the LMRDA, bonding requirements, and LMRDA union officer election provisions.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program has developed better, outcome-based performance measures, and has established regulations that promote more thorough information collection. OLMS uses a Case Data System (CDS) to capture detailed information on case activity and results, including daily workload, unions distributed by size of annual receipts, types of investigations, case findings, enforcement activities, staff time distribution, and status or disposition of each case. A comprehensive set of management reports is available on demand. CDS data will be used to measure the efficiency of the union audit program. OLMS also uses its labor organization reporting database (eLORS) to track the timeliness and sufficiency of LMRDA union reports as well as filing trends and delinquent or incomplete reports. In addition, since 2002, OLMS has outsourced the administration of an on-line customer survey to assess and improve its web-based public disclosure service. OLMS integrates case data, report statistics, and customer feedback into its decision-making stream to measure results against annual plans, and track progress on key strategies supporting OLMS performance goals.

Evidence: GAO Rept. GAO/HEHS-00-116 6/2000, www.gao.gov/new.items/he00116.pdf (describing, throughout the document, the type of information OLMS Case Data System provides); DOL GILS Record of OLMS Case Data System, www.dol.gov/esa/gils/records/000188.htm; DOL FY 2004 PAR, ESA section, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2004/goal2_1.pdf ("Performance data comes from two systems. The Case Data System includes comprehensive information about OLMS investigations, audit findings, and subsequent enforcement actions. The labor organization report system (eLORS) includes timeliness and LMRDA union report sufficiency information."); DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/strat_plan_2003-2008.pdf, Section 5 on stakeholder consultation, and Section 7 on program evaluation (referring to OLMS "customer satisfaction reports," which "track web users' assessments of their experiences finding information on the ESA website).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: DOL ties performance ratings for managers and supervisors to the achievement of Departmental and program-specific goals and outcomes; employee evaluations are aligned on a fiscal year cycle to help cascade standards to non-supervisory personnel. Because this is a new practic, there is no year in which there are performance targets for all programs goals to measure past performance. However, OLMS has put into place a framework to measure future performance for personnel and to hold individuals accountable for programmatic cost, schedule, and performance results.

Evidence: Revised Performance Management Plans for Senior Executives (Form DL 1-2059, Rev. 10/2001) and for Supervisors and Managers (Form DL 1-382, Rev. 10/2001); OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: OLMS establishes an annual operating budget in conjunction with specific plans for contracts, program travel, training, and other operational needs. Funds are allocated to each region based on budget requests submitted with their annual program plans. OLMS uses its own budget tracking system, the Computerized Budget System, in addition to reports provided through the DOL accounting system to monitor expenditures, track annual budget plans, and ensure that all funds are spent for their intended use. A standardized OLMS management report, called a "Performance Review & Analysis," which includes a section for reporting budget status and issues, is compiled by the national office every four months. Each region also submits a monthly budget status report. ESA provides a level of oversight of the OLMS budget. Audits of OLMS' financial management system and practices have found no defects, reportable errors, or violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Evidence: Estimated and actual obligations reported by quarters in OMB apportionments and DOL reports to the Treasury Department; FY 2005 OLMS Annual Plan guidelines; Performance Review & Analysis guidelines.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has competitively sourced some of its services, and has leveraged technology to improve and expedite transactions with union members, unions, and members of the public. OLMS has also recently established a baseline and targets for its efficiency measure. Procedures and strategies to measure and improve returns and efficiencies include: (1) Efficiency measure ("union dollars protected per FTE"): To measure and improve efficient use of resources in its audits program, OLMS will use CDS data to track total union assets (based on receipts) audited in a given year against cumulative staff time dedicated to audits. Program staff's experience is that larger unions present issues that are "exponentially" more complex than smaller unions and, therefore, are more time and resource intensive. In addition, this measure does not directly address the outcome of those audits. However, the deterrence value of larger audits is high - in part because many larger unions have not been audited in decades, if at all - and return on investment (in terms of dollars covered and protected in a single audit) potentially significant. (2) Competitive sourcing (streamlined competition): In FY 2005, the program competed job functions to operate the "public disclosure room" in the national office, and now outsources those services at a cost savings. The contract includes a performance work statement for the operation of the public disclosure room and the processing of reports filed in hard copy. Contract performance requirements establish standards for the accuracy of document conversion services and the registration of public disclosure reports. (3) Technological improvements: In 2002, OLMS instituted a new electronic reporting system to automate and facilitate the filing and review of union financial reports, and an electronic reading room to allow members of the public to review and search union financial reports. The electronic "public disclosure room" the program will make available in FY 2005 will make reports, forms, and other useful information centrally and even more easily available to stakeholders. (4) Budget/performance integration: OLMS is refining a cost model to track resources associated with program goals and outcomes.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003; DOL News Release 6/3/2002, www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA2002328.htm (announcing new electronic viewing room for public review and search of union financial reports); DOL News Release 7/22/2002 (announcing availability of digital signatures for unions seeking to file reports electronically).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OLMS regularly conducts joint investigations with other federal enforcement agencies, including the DOL OIG, DOL's Employment Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under the MOU between DOL and DOJ, OLMS has enjoyed a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office that includes periodic referrals of criminal findings and has yielded a consistent record of indictments and prosecutions. OLMS has developed a federal prosecutor's guide to the LMRDA, which acquaints federal prosecutors with the LMRDA and relevant case law. The Guide has been well received at U.S. Attorney offices.

Evidence: Recent Criminal Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/enforc_actions.htm; Recent Civil Enforcement Actions, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/civil_actions.htm; MOU between DOL and DOJ.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OLMS uses established, formal budget allocation and reporting processes. (See 3.3) OLMS closely monitors DOL and ESA financial management systems that support the program's day-to-day operations. On a monthly basis, OLMS reviews expenditures and prepares budget forecasts for its executive staff and the ESA Assistant Secretary. OLMS conducts ongoing review of cost documents, including requisitions and purchase orders. There have been no material control weaknesses reported by auditors.

Evidence: Estimated and actual obligations reported by quarters in OMB apportionments and DOL reports to the Treasury Department; FY 2005 OLMS Annual Plan guidelines; Performance Review & Analysis guidelines.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program lacks a performance measure for its union democracy goal and a recent evaluation to guide operational and resource allocation decisions. To cure these deficiencies and move toward establishing a system that assesses, corrects, and informs management processes and decisions, OLMS must: (1) To strengthen managerial accountability, ensure that performance measures and standards are faithfully applied in the performance appraisals of program managers and staff. To position itself to do this, the program must first ensure that it has all appropriate performance measures, baselines, and targets in place; that they cover critical program areas; and that they are aligned with the strategic goals of the program and the Department. (2) After consultation with the Office of Management and Budget on the type of evaluation and potential work plans for the project, take steps to conduct a comprehensive program evaluation to identify and correct weaknesses in the processes and operations of the program. (3) To strengthen the enforcement tools available to the program, work with key stakeholders to further the development and enactment of civil monetary penalty or other effective enforcement authorities. The program has a number of tools already in place to inform management decisions. For example: OLMS' Program Review and Analysis is a review and reporting process that, three times each year, culls and analyses key program data issues such as case management; progress against annual performance plans; and staff time usage. Program managers use it as the basis for integrated analysis about program management and performance. OLMS also has a Management Review Program that is used for agency oversight of district office operations. Similar to Accountability Reviews performed at the Department level, this program provides for independent reviews of OLMS field offices by designated management teams, though the framework may also be used by each office for self-assessment.

Evidence: OLMS Program Review and Analysis guidelines; OLMS Management Review Program framework.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: DOL agencies and programs have formally incorporated increased collaboration and feedback loops into their outcome goals. Major regulations have analyzed and responded to comments received

Evidence: DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/strat_plan_2003-2008.pdf, Section 5 on stakeholder consultation; DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf; ESA page on effective date of final LM-2 regulation, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/effectivedate.htm. OLMS significantly revised LMRDA union reporting requirements for large unions in FY 2004. Prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning these changes, the Deputy Assistant Secretary conducted two stakeholder meetings with union officials. On December 27, 2002, OLMS published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise labor organization annual report Form LM-2 and to issue a new trust annual report Form T-1. A 60-day notice and comment period was originally proposed but was later extended for an additional 30 days at the request of affected parties. OLMS received over 35,000 comments and substantive changes were made as a result of those comments before the final rule was published on October 9, 2003. [to add: note on status of legal action].

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: A review of OLMS regulations issued in the previous 12 months found no cases in which rulemaking failed to meet these regulatory requirements. For example, in its rulemaking process to revise reporting Form LM-2, create of a new Form T-1, and make corresponding changes to the governing sections in the Code of Federal Regulations, DOL determined that the proposed rule would have economically significant effects and prepared, for OMB consideration, a full economic impact analysis. The final regulation includes a detailed analysis of cost and burden hours, including a description of the methodology used for the burden estimates.

Evidence: DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf; ESA page on effective date of final LM-2 regulation, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/effectivedate.htm. The burden estimates included in the rule were upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its decision on a challenge to the LM-2 rulemaking.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: As stated in Question 2.RG1, above, OLMS initiated a comprehensive review of its regulations in 2001, when the program was developing and implementing its electronic reporting system. The program first assessed the forms and regulations for the smaller reports - including forms LM-3 and LM-4 - to determine whether changes in the form (and, hence, regulatory changes) would be required either for purposes of electronic conversion or other reasons. The program then reviewed its LM-2 form, used by the largest labor unions, in a review process of many months that - in part due to the complexity and sensitivity of the information being sought - included detailed analysis and close collaboration with the DOL Office of the Solicitor and other key stakeholders. A new OLMS regulation - finalized in October 2003 and effective on a rolling basis (based on unions' fiscal years) starting in 2005 - makes major clarifications to the LM-2 reporting requirements, creates a new T-1 form for trusts' financial information, and makes technical clarifications to Forms LM-3 and LM-4. The regulation clearly states the statutory purposes it is designed to achieve and its relationship to broad program goals (rather than specific performance measures). The program is currently reviewing its LM-30 form, used by union officers and employees to disclose potential conflicts of interest. OLMS is continuing to review its forms and accompanying regulations to ensure statutory compatibility, enduring relevance, minimum burden, and ease of use, including whether wing regulations since 2001 to make judgments about their continuing relevance, usefulness, and burden, including whether revisions are necessary to reflect court decisions.

Evidence: DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf; ESA page on effective date of final LM-2 regulation, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/effectivedate.htm [to add: note on status of legal action]; DOL News Release 3/1/2005, www.dol-union-reports.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20050326.htm (referring to statement by OLMS official that "A number of [crimes uncovered by OLMS' work] might not have been committed if the union officers involved had been complying with their conflict-of-interest (LM-30) obligations In our ongoing effort to strengthen union financial transparency and integrity on behalf of union members, the department is reviewing the LM-30 reporting requirement and will be proposing ways to modernize and improve these reports.").

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The major regulation that has undergone review by the Office of Management and Budget has met standards for the assessment of burden in the collection and reporting of information, and other aspects of compliance. The program is currently reviewing and will continue to review its other regulations.

Evidence: DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf; ESA page on effective date of final LM-2 regulation, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/effectivedate.htm [to add: note on status of legal action]; DOL News Release 3/1/2005, www.dol-union-reports.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20050326.htm

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program has strengthened its performance measurement and planning framework by establishing two viable measures of success in key program areas that have long-term and annual targets. These measures show some progress toward achievement of long-term goals. In furtherance of the transparency goal, the program has leveraged web-based reporting formats - with built-in error checks and data validations for new filings - and optimized compliance assistance to increase the percentage of union reports meeting "standards of acceptability" for public posting from a pre-FY 2003 baseline of 73% to 92% in FY 2004. OLMS has established an ambitious target of 95% for FY 2005. OLMS partially met goals under its previous measures. Separately, the program has completed and is building on major IT and regulatory milestones in the achievement of long-term objectives, including the development and implementation of an electronic filing system for unions and an electronic viewing room for members of the public, and the updating and clarification of reporting requirements for the largest labor unions.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003. Under the strategic goal to "advance safeguards for union financial integrity and democracy and the transparency of union operations," the DOL FY 2004 PAR, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2004/goal2_1.pdf, included the following measures, targets, and results for FY 2004: (1) Increasing union financial integrity: Goal was to develop baseline information on unions with fraud and establish performance targets. Random audit rate established a baseline of 9% (based on any audit finding of an LMRDA criminal violation, which in this case included a high number of union funds embezzlement). OLMS' goal is to reduce the fraud rate to 7.5% in FY 2005. (2) Increasing union transparency: Goal was to increase the percentage of union reports meeting standards of acceptability for public disclosure to 75%. The program achieved an actual rate of 92%. OLMS' goal is to increase the compliance rate to 95% in FY 2005. The DOL FY 2003 PART, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2003/goal2_1.pdf, included the following measures, targets, and results for FY 2003: (1) "Improving timely filing of union annual financial reports that contain information sufficient for public disclosure." Goal was to increase to 85% the timely filing of union annual financial reports by unions with annual receipts over $200,000 (actual rate 64% due to initial use of more stringent guidelines - 3 days down from 90 days beyond the statutory due date - for determining timeliness). A separate goal was to establish a baseline for the percentage of filed reports determined to be sufficient for public disclosure (baseline established at 73%). (2) "Extending LMRDA protections for union financial integrity to a greater number of labor organizations through more effective use of investigative resources." Goal was to increase to 53% the percentage of investigative resources applied to criminal investigations that resulted in convictions (goal exceeded; in fact, 63% of investigative resources applied to criminal cases were expended on cases that resulted in convictions. PAR referred to new goal OLMS established to improve sufficiency of union reports filed for public disclosure. DOL FY 2002 Annual Report, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2002/Goal2_1.pdf. DOL FY 2001 Annual Report, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2001/goal2.pdf#page=2. Statement as read of DOL Asst. Sec. Bernard Anderson before the H. Educ. and the Wkforce. Subctee. on Oversight and Investigations (June 27, 2000), commdocs.house.gov/committees/edu/hedo&i6-114.000/hedo&i6-114.htm, (OLMS goal for FY 1999 was to increase to 85% the unions with annual receipts of $200,000 or more that filed financial reports on time, "which means, no more than 90 days after the end of the union's fiscal year"; actual filing rate was 89%, "which significantly exceeded both the goal in 1999 and the 87 percent goal for 1998 and 1997. So each year, OLMS has exceeded its goal in the timely filing of union reports." For FY 2000, OLMS would "look at that goal to determine whether it should be raised or whether it should be deleted because we need a more accurate measure of the degree to which OLMS is adequately performing the function of protecting union democracy."), and written statement, edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/106th/oi/gpra62700/bernard.htm.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: OLMS partially met annual goals under its previous measures, and has achieved some annual goals using the current ones. As stated above, the program has leveraged web-based reporting formats - with built-in error checks and data validations for new filings - and optimized compliance assistance to increase the percentage of union reports meeting "standards of acceptability" for public posting from a pre-FY 2003 baseline of 73% to 92% in FY 2004. OLMS has established an ambitious target of 95% for FY 2005. The program has also enhanced viewing and electronic search capabilities for older reports. Progress cannot be demonstrated through the integrity measure, which currently has no data beyond the FY 2004 baseline.

Evidence: OLMS CJs submitted with President's Budgets for FYs 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003; DOL FY 2004 PAR, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2004/goal2_1.pdf; DOL FY 2003 PART, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2003/goal2_1.pdf; DOL FY 2002 Annual Report, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2002/Goal2_1.pdf; DOL FY 2001 Annual Report, www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2001/goal2.pdf#page=2; statement as read of DOL Asst. Sec. Bernard Anderson before the H. Educ. and the Wkforce. Subctee. on Oversight and Investigations (June 27, 2000), commdocs.house.gov/committees/edu/hedo&i6-114.000/hedo&i6-114.htm, and written statement, edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/106th/oi/gpra62700/bernard.htm.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program competed functions for the operation of its public disclosure room, functions which are primarily process-oriented but link to OLMS' goal of financial transparency. OLMS is poised to gain significant filing and processing efficiencies through the institution of an electronic submission system for union reports; independent of when reports are come in, they can now be filed, reviewed, and posted more quickly and effectively. Some efficiencies remain unrealized. For example, the program continues to see many union reports filed late - in part due to the lack of adequate enforcement authority - which has a ripple effect on the use of program resources. OLMS has established and is implementing a new efficiency measure.

Evidence: Electronic forms guidance on OLMS website, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/electronic-forms.htm; LMRDA Reporting and Public Disclosure page on the OLMS website, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/rrlo/lmrda.htm. The new efficiency measure - which tracks assets (receipts) of unions being audited in a given year against cumulative staff days used - has not been implemented; a baseline and targets will be established at end of FY 2005.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The program is not participating in the "common measures" exercise. In addition, OLMS is the only federal program charged with overseeing unions' financial management and reporting. Admittedly, though OLMS conducts most investigations of union finances, there is some limited functional overlap; select other federal agencies conduct investigations of unions, financial investigations in particular, in the context of their respective authorities. And, in a broad sense, OLMS shares the goals of union democracy and financial integrity with criminal justice agencies like DOJ, the FBI, and offices of inspectors general government-wide.

Evidence: DOL Budget Chapter included in FY 2004 President's Budget, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/labor.html (OLMS is "the only federal office charged with overseeing unions' financial affairs").

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: As stated above, there is no comprehensive program evaluation on record. The 2000 GAO review described but did not evaluate program processes, and made no recommendations. The other GAO studies - in 1997 and 2000 - looked at specific areas and made recommendations that DOL has implemented.

Evidence: See, for example, GAO reports GAO/HEHS-00-116 and GAO/RCED-00-260. DOL states it has implemented GAO's recommendation for closer coordination between DOL and the Department of Transportation to ensure timely grant awards. The Department reports to the Congress annually on employee certification rates and approval times.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: It is too early to tell whether implementation of the new LM-2 rule maximizes net benefits. It is appropriate to wait to make this determination, at least until the outcome of the current legal proceedings is known. In addition, OLMS is still reviewing existing regulations (including its rule governing reporting form LM-30), and may determine that - given the time since they were last revised, court rulings in the interim, social changes, or other factors - one or more regulations must be updated to maximize net benefits.

Evidence: DOL Final Rule on Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports (Form LM-2), 68 Fed.Reg. No 196 10/9/2003, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/2003025487.pdf [to add: note on status of legal action]; DOL News Release 3/1/2005, www.dol-union-reports.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA20050326.htm (referring to review of LM-30 form and rule).