Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: "Customer satisfaction"

    12 publications with a total of 27 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: William B. Shear
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help business disaster victims and resource partners better access information about the disaster loan process, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration should integrate information resources such as the fact sheet, reference guide, and three-step process flier into its disaster loan assistance web portal and Partner Training Portal in a way that is more accessible to users.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: SBA stated that the disaster loan assistance portal includes links to various loan-related resources and a link to SBA.gov, where users can access the SBA Disaster Loan Program Reference Guide and online learning center. We will continue to follow up with SBA on whether the agency plans to centrally integrate the links to loan-related resources into its disaster loan assistance web portal and Partner Training Portal, so resources can be more accessible to users.
    Recommendation: To help reduce confusion about the disaster loan process and the time frames applicants may experience, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration should ensure the consistency of content across its disaster loan process resources by including in these written and online resources, as appropriate, the following: (1) the three-step process; (2) the types of documentation SBA may request and the general reasons why such information may be requested; and (3) estimates of loan processing time frames applicants might experience and external factors, such as the severity of a disaster, that may affect these time frames using, for example, estimates from its forecasting and related planning tools.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: SBA stated that the agency has provided a consistent messaging about the timeframe for making approval decisions on disaster loan applications: SBA's goal is to make a decision on all home and business disaster loan applications within 2-3 weeks, and this loan approval timeframe also is referenced in other loan-related resources and media interviews. We will continue to follow up with SBA on whether the agency plans to (a) ensure informational content is consistent across written and online resources, (b) also include in written and online resources the types of documentation SBA may request and general reasons for the information requests, and (c) tailor the general 2-3 week loan decision timeframe to the each disaster, including the severity of the disaster and other factors that may affect the timeframe, by using the agency's forecasting and related planning tools.
    Recommendation: To further assist disaster business loan applicants, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration should define technical terminology related to financial statements and other finance terminology on the disaster business loan application forms, in both electronic and paper format. For example, in the online application portal, SBA could incorporate a glossary in the "help" feature. Additionally, SBA could include a glossary in the paper application, so that business applicants who apply by mail can access the definitions as well as the general reasons why such information may be requested.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: SBA stated that the agency is developing a glossary of business financial terms to clearly define terminology used in SBA home and business disaster loan applications and required supporting financial documents. Once completed, SBA stated that it will make the glossary available through the agency's disaster loan assistance portal and the SBA.gov website. We will follow up with SBA once the agency completes the glossary of business financial terms.
    Director: Brian J. Lepore
    Phone: (202) 512-4523

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As DOD assesses potential cost savings under the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board or through other cost savings initiatives identified, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange to provide information to Congress that includes data, assumptions, and methodology supporting DOD's conclusion for not achieving budget neutrality.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: As DOD assesses potential cost savings under the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board or through other cost savings initiatives identified, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange to develop a plan with assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and specific time frames for achieving alternative reductions to appropriations, to support DOD's efforts to ensure that DOD's cost savings target is feasible and accurate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: As DOD conducts pilot programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange to identify specific metrics to determine whether DOD has fulfilled the mandated requirement to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction, the provision of high-quality products, and the sustainment of patron savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: J. Christopher Mihm
    Phone: (202) 512-6806

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council and General Services Administration, should ensure the information presented on Performance.gov consistently complies with GPRAMA public reporting requirements for the website's content.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, OMB staff stated that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance.gov, and plan to launch the new site in February 2018 with the fiscal year 2019 budget. Staff confirmed they will ensure that the redesigned Performance.gov site will include content that meets public reporting requirements. They stated they anticipate releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 to help ensure agencies are prepared to report required data.
    Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council and General Services Administration, should analyze and, where appropriate, implement usability test results to improve Performance.gov.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, OMB staff stated that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance.gov, and plan to launch the new site in February 2018 with the fiscal year 2019 budget. Staff confirmed they will ensure that the redesigned Performance.gov site will include content that meets public reporting requirements. They stated they anticipate releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 to help ensure agencies are prepared to report required data. In addition, OMB and PIC staff noted that the new vendor for Performance.gov (who had not been selected at that time) will help develop a strategic plan for the site that incorporates results from usability studies, and a stakeholder outreach plan that encompasses diverse groups including Congress, federal agency managers and staff, and other interested groups.
    Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council and General Services Administration, should develop a strategic plan for the future of Performance.gov. Among other things, this plan should include: (A) the goals, objectives, and resources needed to consistently meet Digitalgov.gov and GPRAMA requirements; (B) a customer outreach plan that considers how (1) OMB informs users of changes in Performance.gov, (2) OMB uses social media as a method of communication, and (3) users access Performance.gov so that OMB could, as appropriate, deploy mobile applications to communicate effectively; and (C) a strategy to manage and archive the content and data on Performance.gov in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration guidance.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, OMB staff stated that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance.gov, and plan to launch the new site in February 2018 with the fiscal year 2019 budget. Staff confirmed they will ensure that the redesigned Performance.gov site will include content that meets public reporting requirements. They stated they anticipate releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 to help ensure agencies are prepared to report required data. In addition, OMB and PIC staff noted that the new vendor for Performance.gov (who had not been selected at that time) will help develop a strategic plan for the site that incorporates results from usability studies, and a stakeholder outreach plan that encompasses diverse groups including Congress, federal agency managers and staff, and other interested groups.
    Director: Mark Goldstein
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve access to and awareness and applicability of ITS resources for ITS deployment, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), in coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), to develop a strategy to raise awareness of JPO's training, technical assistance, and knowledge resources for transit ITS deployment in the transit community.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Transportation agreed with GAO's recommendation and stated that its Professional Capacity Building Program has two initiatives under development that will raise awareness of existing Intelligent Transportation System knowledge resources. First, the department will develop an overall course catalog that will describe all existing resources offerings. Second, the department will develop a new strategic plan that will utilize information from the updated course catalog as well as internal analyses to determine which new knowledge resources need to be developed to meet the needs of the transit community. As of June 2017, GAO is awaiting the Department's response regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve access to and awareness and applicability of ITS resources for ITS deployment, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the ITS JPO, in coordination with FTA, to include ITS adoption by small urban and rural transit providers in ITS monitoring efforts.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Transportation agreed with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Federal Transit Administration is considering the development of a small urban and rural Intelligent Transportation System survey component as part of its 2019 Intelligent Transportation System Deployment Survey. As of June 2017, GAO is awaiting the Department's response regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation.
    Director: Valerie C. Melvin
    Phone: (202) 512-6304

    5 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to develop an updated plan for VBMS that includes (1) a schedule for when VBA intends to complete development and implementation of the system, including capabilities that fully support disability claims, pension claims, and appeals processing and (2) the estimated cost to complete development and implementation of the system.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation calling for an updated plan for the Veterans Benefits Management System. However, as of June 2017, the department had not developed a plan that included a schedule for when the Veterans Benefits Administration intends to complete development and implementation of the system, as well as the estimated cost of doing so. We will continue to monitor VA's actions in response to this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to establish goals for system response time and use the goals as a basis for periodically reporting actual system performance.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and reported that the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) program office has developed draft metrics for performance of the system. Specifically, VA stated that the office has established key performance indicators as a basis for monitoring the response times of the most commonly executed user transactions (or work events) within VBMS. According to the department, these indicators have been incorporated into the application's continuous monitoring tools for all service level agreements and these agreements are enforced by the VA Service Level Management Board. Nevertheless, as of June 2017, VA had not identified its goals for VBMS response times, nor had the department reported actual system response times. We will continue to monitor VA's actions toward addressing this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to reduce the incidence of high- and medium-priority level defects that are present at the time of future VBMS releases.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and, in June 2017, reiterated its plans and procedures for decreasing the incidences of defects in each system release. However, the incidences of high- and medium-priority level defects at the time of recent VBMS releases (i.e., releases 10.1 and 11.0) had increased relative to the number of defects present at the time of the earlier release (i.e., release 8.1) that we described in our report. We will continue to monitor VA's actions and progress in response to this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to develop and administer a statistically valid survey of VBMS users to determine the effectiveness of steps taken to make improvements in users' satisfaction.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and in January 2017, conducted a survey of VBMS users that was sent to over 16,000 claims processors at each of its 56 regional offices. Although 52 percent of respondents indicated that they were very satisfied or satisfied with VBMS, the department received only about 2500 responses to the survey for a 15 percent response rate. This low response rate raises concern about whether the survey results are statistically valid. We have requested additional information from VA to determine any actions the department has taken to ensure the statistical validity of its survey results and will assess any information that is provided.
    Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to establish goals that define customer satisfaction with VBMS and report on actual performance toward achieving the goals based on the results of GAO's survey of VBMS users and any future surveys VA conducts.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and conducted a survey of VBMS users in January 2017. However, as of June 2017, the department had yet to develop customer satisfaction goals for VBMS that would provide users with an expectation of the system response times they should anticipate, and management with an indication of how well the system is performing relative to performance goals.
    Director: Yvonne D. Jones
    Phone: (202) 512-2717

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: Any federal agency designated to investigate future USERRA claims against federal executive agencies should undertake efforts to increase the response rate of the customer satisfaction survey if it continues to be administered, so more tenable conclusions can be drawn from its data. Such efforts may include follow-up phone calls to nonrespondents, additional email notifications requesting participation in the survey, or making the survey easier to complete and submit.

    Agency: Department of Labor
    Status: Open

    Comments: In February 2016, Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service (DOL/VETS) reported their office is handling all USERRA complaints, Federal and non-Federal following conclusion of the demonstration project with OSC. DOL/VETS reported the agency deployed its customer satisfaction survey in May 2016 and will be monitoring and collecting responses on a quarterly basis. The agency plans to employ the same follow-up technique used during the demonstration project and will determine if additional follow-up emails are warranted.
    Director: Eileen Larence
    Phone: (202) 512-8777

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that I&A maintains critical skills and competencies, when planning for and implementing current and future workforce actions, the Secretary of Homeland Security should establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate workforce initiatives and use results to determine any needed changes.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: GAO will update the status of this recommendation when the Department of Homeland Security provides documentation and other information on actions it has taken to monitor and evaluate workforce initiatives.
    Director: Bertoni, Daniel
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to develop new measures of long-term employment that go beyond the minimum 60 days of post-placement monitoring that is currently required. In developing measures, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to consider the feasibility of using results from planned post-closure surveys of veterans as a data source.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 2017, VA continues to develop its new Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Case Management System (VRE-CMS). The expected date of implementation for this system is September 2018, and it will enable VA to track participants' status post-case closure. VA indicated that after this system has been operational for six months and initial data have been collected on participants' post-case closure outcomes, the agency will develop new performance metrics tied to these outcomes. VA also indicated that it is exploring the possibility of tracking VR&E participants post-closure earnings data through a data sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration. To close this recommendation as implemented, VA will need to demonstrate that it has developed and implemented performance metrics related to long-term employment outcomes.
    Director: Mihm, J Christopher
    Phone: (202)512-3236

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance the value of Performance.gov for intended audiences and improve the ability to identify and prioritize potential improvements, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement Council and the General Services Administration--should clarify the ways that intended audiences could use the information on the Performance.gov website to accomplish specific tasks and specify the design changes that would be required to facilitate that use.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: OMB has taken some steps to address this recommendation, but additional actions are needed. The General Services Administration, on behalf of OMB, conducted usability testing on Performance.gov in September 2013. The test found that (1) sections of the website were not accessible; (2) users were unclear about the purpose of Performance.gov, its intended audiences, and what users can do on the website; (3) users had difficultly locating graphics and understanding if agencies had met their goals; and (4) the search functionality produced poor results and the search terms were not highlighted. This usability test produced several recommendations based on these findings. According to OMB and PIC staff in August 2015 and May 2016, they have taken some actions to address the recommendations. For example, staff addressed the accessibility issue and partly addressed the search issue. However, as of June 2017, OMB has not yet addressed the other two recommendations. Further, OMB and the PIC have not clarified the ways that intended audiences can use the information on the website to accomplish specific tasks, or specified design changes that would be required to facilitate that use, as we described in our report. We will continue to monitor progress.
    Recommendation: To enhance the value of Performance.gov for intended audiences and improve the ability to identify and prioritize potential improvements, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement Council and the General Services Administration--should seek to more systematically collect information on the needs of a broader audience, including through the use of customer satisfaction surveys and other approaches recommended by HowTo.gov.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) systematically collect information on the needs of its users, by implementing a website survey, a feedback form on Performance.gov and a working group focused on improving the PREP system. Staff have set up a backlog system to prioritize, store and address user feedback. According to PIC staff, feedback is prioritized based on several factors, including the value it would bring to a larger audience, the cost and estimated time to implement, and the risk and opportunity cost of addressing the feedback. The highest priority items on the product backlog system are placed on the monthly prioritized list for the contractor to begin work on. However, as of June 2017, OMB and the PIC have not identified, engaged, or collected information on the needs of a broader audience, such as interested members of the public, and how those needs might be addressed through the website.
    Recommendation: To enhance the value of Performance.gov for intended audiences and improve the ability to identify and prioritize potential improvements, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement Council and the General Services Administration--should seek to ensure that all performance, search, and customer satisfaction metrics, consistent with leading practices outlined in HowTo.gov, are tracked for the website, and, where appropriate, create goals for those metrics to help identify and prioritize potential improvements to Performance.gov.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) monitor 18 of the 24 recommended performance metrics. PIC staff said that they now track the performance measures through the Digital Analytics Program, which does not track the remaining 6 measures. OMB and PIC staff have not created goals for the measures they track to help identify and prioritize potential improvements to Performance.gov. We will continue to monitor progress
    Director: Mctigue Jr, James R
    Phone: (202) 512-7968

    2 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service should direct appropriate officials to develop a long-term strategy to improve web services provided to taxpayers, in accordance with Howto.gov and other federal guidance outlined in our report. To accomplish this, the IRS should establish a numerical or other measureable goal to improve taxpayer satisfaction and a timeframe for achieving it.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: IRS has made progress in improving its online services strategy, as we recommended, but as of March 2017, IRS has not yet completed its efforts. IRS's strategy has evolved from a singular focus on on-line services to a more comprehensive strategy of taxpayer interaction through all service channels. In February 2016, IRS announced an agency-wide Future State Initiative, which in part, aims to deliver service improvements across different taxpayer interactions such as individual online accounts assistance, exams, and collections. In July 2016, the official responsible for IRS's on-line office reported that the agency is working towards developing an overall customer service satisfaction goal as part of the IRS Future State Initiative. The official said that this goal is broadly meant to cover various ways the public interacts with IRS, including web, phone, correspondence and walk in. In November 2016, IRS provided documentation on the goals of the Future State Initiative. However, this documentation does not include specific numerical targets for the performance measures that IRS expects to achieve for each goal or a timeline to achieve those goals. As of March 2017, IRS is continuing to incorporate a customer service satisfaction goal in its upcoming strategic plan.
    Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service should direct appropriate officials to develop a long-term strategy to improve web services provided to taxpayers, in accordance with Howto.gov and other federal guidance outlined in our report. To accomplish this, the IRS should develop business cases for all new online services, describing the potential benefits and costs of the project, and use them to prioritize future projects.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: IRS has made progress in improving its online services strategy, as we recommended, but as of March 2017, IRS has not yet completed its efforts. IRS's strategy has evolved from a singular focus on on-line services to a more comprehensive strategy of taxpayer interaction through all service channels. In February 2016, IRS announced an agency-wide Future State Initiative, which in part, aims to deliver service improvements across different taxpayer interactions such as individual online accounts assistance, exams, and collections. In addition, IRS revised its business case template in 2014 to include, among other things, a discussion of costs, benefits, and risks of future projects, consistent with our recommendation. However, IRS did not use the template to develop its Online Account business case, which it provided to us as an example in September 2015. We reviewed IRS documentation and found that the business case contained some of the information we recommended, such as high level time frames, but was missing other information, such as the benefits and costs of the project. Further, it is unclear how IRS plans to use the business case to prioritize future projects. In March 2016, IRS reported they implemented a new process for online investments that requires details on expected benefits and costs to be reviewed by the senior executives for prioritization and follow-up. As of March 2017, we requested additional documentation concerning this process. Analyses of benefits and costs can help agencies decide which new projects to start in a manner that maximizes the benefits derived from agency resources.
    Director: Courts, Michael J
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to contain costs and reduce duplication of administrative support services overseas, Congress may wish to consider requiring agencies to participate in ICASS services unless they provide a business case to show that they can obtain these services outside of ICASS without increasing overall costs to the U.S. government or that their mission cannot be achieved within ICASS.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 2017, no legislative action has yet been taken. Congress has not required agencies to participate in ICASS absent a business case that shows that they can obtain services outside ICASS without additional cost to the U.S. government, as GAO suggested in January 2012. In July 2013, legislation was introduced in the Senate directing the Secretary of State to develop a process that any agency participating in the ICASS program shall use to provide a cost analysis and justification for the agency's decision to opt out, in whole or in part, of ICASS services. Congress did not pass this legislation, passing in its stead the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which contained no language related to ICASS. In January 2014, the joint explanatory statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, included a direction that the Secretary of State develop, in coordination with the ICASS Service Center and participating agencies, an efficient process by which an agency participating in the ICASS program provides a cost analysis and justification for the agency's decision to opt out of any ICASS services. However, this direction does not speak to a requirement that agencies participate in ICASS absent such a justification. Action on this matter is important because continued duplication of administrative services limits ICASS's ability to achieve economies of scale and deliver services more efficiently.
    Director: Goldstein, Mark L
    Phone: (202) 512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness and accountability of FCC's efforts to oversee wireless phone service, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should direct the commission to develop goals and related measures for FCC's informal complaint-handing efforts that clearly articulate intended outcomes and address important dimensions of performance.

    Agency: Federal Communications Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its February 5, 2010 response, FCC stated that it would consider establishing meaningful and measurable outcome-based standards in the context of its efforts to reassess goals for the mediation of informal consumer complaints. FCC noted that it already has basic performance metrics for responding to consumer complaints in a timely manner and will examine ways to automate such responses and provide them by email, which may be more efficient than processing these complaints manually and mailing a paper response. In June 2011, FCC stated it had taken steps to improve its complaint-handling efforts by increasing staff training and beginning an effort to revise its complaint coding and intake process, which it expects to complete by the end of fiscal year 2011. FCC also stated it is considering other enhancements for fiscal year 2012. However, this response did not mention any direct action in response to the recommendation. In May 2012, FCC stated it had begun an effort to improve its informal complaint-handling, including revising its complaint intake and coding procedures with an emphasis on collecting information to enhance policymaking and compliance activities. The response did not specifically mention goals and measures, but said the effort was ongoing and expected to continue through the end of 2012. In August 2013, FCC stated it was considering a proposal for comprehensive reform to its consumer complaint process. The agency hoped to institute performance measures for the consumer complaint process as part of the reform. In June 2014, FCC staff said that the FCC Chairman had set a goal to reform the agency's complaint process by the end of 2014. In August 2016, FCC staff said that the agency is working to develop performance metrics for its complaint-handling efforts. We will continue to follow up with FCC about its efforts.
    Recommendation: To better ensure a systemwide focus in providing oversight of wireless phone service and improve FCC's partnership with state agencies that also oversee this service, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should direct the commission to develop and issue guidance delineating federal and state authority to regulate wireless phone service, including pulling together prior rulings on this issue; addressing the related open proceedings on truth-in-billing and early termination fees; and, if needed, seeking appropriate statutory authority from Congress.

    Agency: Federal Communications Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its February 5, 2010 response, FCC noted that the Notice of Inquiry on Consumer Information and Disclosure it released on August 9, 2009, provides an opportunity for the agency to review prior rulings and related open proceedings. The response also stated that FCC's Wireless Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau are working together to review areas of the Communications Act where clarification is needed regarding state and federal roles for oversight of wireless phone service. In June 2011, FCC stated that it was continuing to hold regular meetings with associations representing state agency officials, but did not mention taking any action to directly address the recommendation. In May 2012, FCC stated that the topic of wireless regulation is discussed during intergovernmental webinars FCC hosts with state and local government offices, but did not indicate it had developed and issued guidance as called for in the recommendation. In August 2013, FCC stated that it has not issued any formal guidance on delineating federal and state wireless oversight authority. In June 2014, FCC stated that the commission was considering making changes to its truth-in-billing rules by the end of 2014 and that such a proceeding would include addressing how FCC partners with states in protecting wireless consumers. In July 2016, FCC said that it planned to address this issue in December 2017.