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: "Duplication of effort"

    8 publications with a total of 25 open recommendations including 8 priority recommendations
    Director: Timothy J. DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    5 open recommendations
    including 4 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To better promote federal agency accountability for implementing the FSSI and category management initiatives, the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy should ensure that transition plans are submitted and monitored as required by FSSI guidance and guidance governing specific category management initiatives.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff agreed that agency transitions plans should be submitted and monitored in accordance with guidance, as GAO recommended in October 2016. OMB staff indicated that all FSSIs are now being evaluated against best in class criteria as part of the migration to a category management approach to federal procurement. Further, OMB staff stated that OMB will issue additional policy or guidance as necessary. GAO believes these actions, if implemented, would meet the intent of the recommendation. As of August 1, 2017, OMB staff indicated they are continuing efforts to implement this recommendation. Given that transition plans were also required under FSSI guidance but were not submitted or monitored, it will be important for OMB to ensure that agencies follow through on submitting required plans going forward.
    Recommendation: To better promote federal agency accountability for implementing the FSSI and category management initiatives, the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy should update the Leadership Council charter to establish an expectation that Leadership Council agencies develop agency-specific targets for use of the solutions approved.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, OMB staff agreed with the need for agency-specific targets for use of FSSI and category management initiatives as GAO recommended. OMB staff recommended, however, that this be accomplished through the Category Management governance and reporting procedures and processes that will be instituted in upcoming guidance, rather than an update to the Leadership Council charter. In October 2016, OMB issued a draft circular on category management establishing that spend under management will be the principal measure OMB will use to assess agency adoption of category management. OMB staff indicated that they plan to evaluate at least annually agencies' spend under management results, which includes agency adoption of best in class solutions, and then review with agency leaders progress toward meeting goals. As of August 1, 2017, OMB staff indicated they are continuing efforts to implement this recommendation. Given the low agency usage of the FSSIs, without such actions, and ensuring these targets and measures are set, OMB, and specifically the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, will lack the means to monitor progress and hold large procurement agencies accountable for using existing FSSIs or best in class solutions identified under subsequent category management efforts.
    Recommendation: To better promote federal agency accountability for implementing the FSSI and category management initiatives, the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy should revise the 2015 category management guidance to establish a process for setting targets and performance measures for each Leadership Council agency's adoption of proposed FSSIs and category management solutions and ensure agency specific targets and measures are set.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff agreed that Leadership Council agency progress towards implementing category management should be tracked and measured as we recommended. OMB staff reported that guidance is in draft form in which agency progress will be measured using the Spend Under Management (SUM) model which provides an assessment of category management maturity for each of the ten government-wide categories as evaluated against five attributes: leadership, strategy, data, tools, and metrics. OMB will assess agency progress no less than annually and will engage agency leaders in regularly reviewing progress toward their goals. In addition, OMB will track agency spend through best in class contracts and these data will likely be used as an internal category metric and shared with the agencies. Taken together, these actions are responsive to GAO?s recommendations. As of August 1, 2017, OMB staff indicated they are continuing efforts to implement this recommendation. Given the low use of the FSSIs, OMB should continue to carefully monitor category management implementations as it moves forward and ensure that OFPP uses the planned targets and measures to hold agencies accountable for individual results. In short, greater accountability can lead to increased savings.
    Recommendation: To better promote federal agency accountability for implementing the FSSI and category management initiatives, the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy should report on agency specific targets and metrics as part of the category management Cross-Agency Priority goal.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff agreed that agency specific targets and metrics should be reported as GAO recommended in October 2016. OMB staff indicated that results achieved relative to the Category Management Cross Agency Priority (CAP) goal targets will continue to be reported on a quarterly basis on Peformance.gov but that they will likely not include agency specific targets and metrics. Rather, OMB staff indicated that agency spending through best in class solutions will be tracked and used as an internal category metric and that OMB will engage agency leaders in regularly reviewing progress toward their goals and assess agencies no less than annually. GAO believes these actions, if implemented, would meet the intent of the recommendation. As of August 1, 2017, OMB staff indicated they are continuing efforts to implement this recommendation. Given the low agency usage of the FSSIs, OMB needs to monitor progress and hold large procurement agencies accountable for using existing FSSIs or best in class solutions identified under subsequent category management efforts.
    Recommendation: To improve the management of current FSSIs, the GSA FSSI program management office should provide oversight and support to the Information Retrieval FSSI to better align their practices with current strategic sourcing guidance related to collecting and using transactional data to calculate savings.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to our recommendation, GSA conducted a gap analysis of the Information Retrieval FSSI and its compliance with FSSI standards and provided the Library of Congress with FSSI best practice tools and resources related to collecting transactional data and calculating savings. According to GSA, the Library of Congress intends to address gaps to support the goal of implementation in the next Information Retrieval award in 2018. GSA will monitor progress, and provide feedback and assistance.
    Director: Shea, Rebecca
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    2 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve federal agency LMR procurement practices, the Director of OMB should direct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to examine the feasibility of including LMR technology in the category management initiative.

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

    Comments: OMB generally agreed with this recommendation and noted that it is working to identify which information-technology strategies will produce the best return on investment and that it continues to evaluate its category-specific plans. We will update the status of this recommendation after we receive additional information from OMB.
    Recommendation: To improve federal agency LMR procurement practices, the Director of OMB should direct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to, if warranted, include LMR technology within the appropriate spend category.

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

    Comments: OMB generally agreed with this recommendation and noted that it is working to identify which information-technology strategies will produce the best return on investment and that it continues to evaluate its category-specific plans. We will update the status of this recommendation after we receive additional information from OMB.
    Director: Von Ah, Andrew J
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that its Reserve Components' headquarters are conducting assessments with sufficient frequency, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to, when updating its existing guidance to clarify to which organizations it applies, also clarify whether assessments should be conducted twice yearly or every 2 years, or at some other frequency.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, DOD officials stated that the Air Force updated existing guidance to clarify the frequency of assessments of applicable headquarters activities, and this revised guidance is awaiting final signature, expected in September 2017. According to officials, the revised Air Force guidance now includes draft language, which states that Headquarters, Air Force; major commands; and the Air National Guard Headquarters element should establish an internal engineered factor and evaluate headquarters strength relative to the factor every year concurrently with fiscal year budget decisions that change allocated force structure. Once the revised guidance has been finalized, GAO will review the updated guidance and re-assess the implementation status of this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Office of the Director, Air National Guard has the number of personnel needed to accomplish their missions and performance objectives at the Joint Force Headquarters - State, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Chief, National Guard Bureau, to require assessments of Air Staff element personnel requirements at the Joint Force Headquarters - State.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, DOD officials stated that only the Air Force can provide and develop factors, tools, and overarching industrial and management engineering methodologies to accurately quantify the essential manpower required for the effective and efficient accomplishment of capabilities supporting oversight of the Air Force. These officials went on to add that Joint Force Headquarters-State are not active Air Force organizations. Accordingly, the National Guard Bureau and the states must determine personnel requirements associated with National Guard Bureau and state missions. For example, these officials stated that the National Guard Bureau continues to use all Air Force developed factors, tools and overarching industrial and management engineering methodologies to accurately quantify the essential manpower required at Joint Force Headquarters-State. They also stated that the Joint Force Headquarters-States' manpower requirements have been placed on the National Guard Bureau's full-time manpower study schedule for fiscal year 2017 and will undergo an immediate currency review. Additionally, every two years from the fiscal year 2017 currency review, the National Guard Bureau will re-assess and quantify essential manpower requirements at each of the Joint Force Headquarters-State. GAO requested additional information (e.g., guidance requiring Air Staff elements to conduct personnel requirements assessments at the Joint Force Headquarters-State, results of the inclusion of Joint Force Headquarters-State in the National Guard Bureau's full time manpower requirements study for fiscal year 2017) and will re-assess the implementation status of this recommendation upon receiving the requested documentation.
    Director: Lawrance Evans, Jr.
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: Congress should consider whether additional changes to the financial regulatory structure are needed to reduce or better manage fragmentation and overlap in the oversight of financial institutions and activities to improve (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of oversight; (2) the consistency of consumer and investor protections; and (3) the consistency of financial oversight for similar institutions, products, risks, and services. For example, Congress could consider consolidating the number of federal agencies involved in overseeing the safety and soundness of depository institutions, combining the entities involved in overseeing the securities and derivatives markets, transferring the remaining prudential regulators' consumer protection authorities over large depository institutions to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the optimal role for the federal government in insurance regulation, among other considerations.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: One bill has been introduced in the 115th Congress that would change the financial regulatory structure to address fragmented and overlapping regulatory authorities among agencies, as GAO suggested in February 2016. H.R. 594 was introduced on January 20, 2017, and calls for the functions of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to be combined in a single independent regulatory commission. Such an action could help to address fragmentation and overlap between the two agencies, and reduce opportunities for inefficiencies in the regulatory process and inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks.
    Recommendation: Congress should consider whether legislative changes are necessary to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks. Congress could do so by making changes to FSOC's mission, its authorities, or both, or to the missions and authorities of one or more of the FSOC member agencies to support a stronger link between the responsibility and capacity to respond to systemic risks. In doing so, Congress could solicit information from FSOC on the effective scope of its collective designation authorities, including any gaps.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: No legislative action identified. As of March 1, 2017, no legislation had been introduced that would align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks, as GAO suggested in February 2016. Without such legislative changes, FSOC may lack the tools it needs to comprehensively address systemic risks that may emerge, and a gap will continue to exist in the post Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mechanisms for the mitigation of systemic risks.
    Recommendation: To help regulators address regulatory fragmentation and improve FSOC's ability to identify emerging systemic risks, as OFR develops and refines its financial stability monitoring tools, it should work with FSOC to determine ways in which to fully and regularly incorporate current and future monitors and assessments into Systemic Risk Committee deliberations, including, where relevant, those that present disaggregated or otherwise confidential supervisory information.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
    Status: Open

    Comments: At the FSOC Systemic Risk Committee meeting held in December 2016, Treasury indicated that Office of Financial Research staff presented on the agency's Financial Stability Report. Officials indicated that they provided an assessment on potential financial stability risks, including macroeconomic, market, credit, funding and liquidity, and contagion risks. Systemic Risk Committee meeting attendees were able to compare and contrast these with the results from the Federal Reserve's systemic risk monitoring activities, which were also presented at the meeting. Office of Financial Research officials stated that there was general consensus at the meeting that these discussions were useful and that they should continue. GAO does not believe that this action is consistent with the intent of if February 2016 recommendation to fully and regularly incorporate current and future monitors and assessments into FSOC's Systemic Risk Committee deliberations. While GAO encourages sharing this type of information, the Office of Financial Research's Financial Stability Report is a publicly-available report. The intent of GAO's recommendation was to encourage the agency to fully incorporate all of its monitors into Systemic Risk Committee discussions, including its Financial Stability Monitor--its benchmark tool for assessing risks across the financial system. In addition, in its February 2016 report, GAO encouraged the agency to seek ways in which monitors that present disaggregated or otherwise confidential supervisory information can be incorporated in committee discussions. Without sharing such monitors and information, the Systemic Risk Committee may identify and advance the analysis of only a subset of systemic risks in a timely manner and may identify others too late or miss others altogether. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2016 was introduced in the 114th Congress. The act called for the Office of Financial Research to be eliminated. It was not passed before the end of the 114th Congress.
    Recommendation: To help regulators address regulatory fragmentation and improve FSOC's ability to identify emerging systemic risks, the Federal Reserve should work with FSOC to regularly incorporate the comprehensive results of its systemic risk monitoring activities into Systemic Risk Committee deliberations.

    Agency: Federal Reserve System
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 1, 2017, Federal Reserve officials indicated that they provided a presentation to FSOC's Systemic Risk Committee in December 2016, which included comprehensive results from its systemic risk monitoring activities. This action appears to be consistent with GAO's February 2016 recommendation, but the documentation provided by the Federal Reserve did not provide sufficient evidence that the agency has regularly incorporated these results into Systemic Risk Committee meetings. GAO will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's participation in Systemic Risk Committee meetings to ensure that the agency continues to provide both regular and comprehensive results to the committee. Without better access to systemic risk monitoring tools and other outputs, the Systemic Risk Committee may identify and advance the analysis of only a subset of systemic risks in a timely manner and may identify others too late or miss others altogether.
    Recommendation: To more efficiently and effectively monitor the financial system for systemic risks and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication, OFR and the Federal Reserve should jointly articulate individual and common goals for their systemic risk monitoring activities, including a plan to monitor progress toward articulated goals, and formalize regular strategic and technical discussions around their activities and outputs to support those goals.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 1, 2017, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Financial Research had coordinated to organize semi-annual meetings to jointly discuss views from their respective monitoring of the financial system for risks; but these meetings had not yet taken place. The first of these meetings is to be held in May 2017 following the agencies' respective systemic risk exercises. Initiating these discussions addresses part of GAO's February 2016 recommendation. GAO plans to review documentation from these meetings in 2017 to further assess if the agencies will use these meetings to jointly articulate individual and common goals, including developing a plan to monitor progress toward the goals. Fully addressing GAO's recommendation could help to ensure comprehensiveness in systemic risk surveillance and reduced risk of duplication. On September 9, 2016, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2016 was introduced. It called for the Office of Financial Research to be eliminated. The legislation did not pass before the 114th Congress ended.
    Recommendation: To more efficiently and effectively monitor the financial system for systemic risks and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication, OFR and the Federal Reserve should jointly articulate individual and common goals for their systemic risk monitoring activities, including a plan to monitor progress toward articulated goals, and formalize regular strategic and technical discussions around their activities and outputs to support those goals.

    Agency: Federal Reserve System
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 1, 2017, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Financial Research had coordinated to organize semi-annual meetings to jointly discuss views from their respective monitoring of the financial system for risks; but these meetings had not yet taken place. The first of these meetings is to be held in May 2017 following the agencies' respective systemic risk exercises. Initiating these discussions addresses part of GAO's February 2016 recommendation. GAO plans to review documentation from these meetings in 2017 to further assess if the agencies will use these meetings to jointly articulate individual and common goals, including developing a plan to monitor progress toward the goals. Fully addressing GAO's recommendation could help to ensure comprehensiveness in systemic risk surveillance and reduced risk of duplication. On September 9, 2016, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2016 was introduced. It called for the Office of Financial Research to be eliminated. The legislation did not pass before the 114th Congress ended.
    Director: David A. Powner
    Phone: (202) 512-9286

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better facilitate the coordination of--and accountability for--the estimated billions of dollars in federal geospatial investments, to reduce duplication, and, specifically, to make progress toward an effective national infrastructure and to improve oversight on federal spending on geospatial data and assets, the Director of OMB should improve oversight of progress on the NSDI by requiring federal agencies to report on their efforts to establish and implement policies for identifying geospatial metadata on the Geospatial Platform and their procedures for utilizing the Marketplace feature of the Geospatial Platform before making new investments in geospatial data.

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

    Comments: As of September 7, 2017, OMB had not yet taken steps to require all federal agencies that invest in geospatial data to report on their efforts to establish and implement policies and procedures for utilizing the Geospatial Platform before making new investments in geospatial data. OMB officials in stated in December 2016 that they were in discussion with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) on how to best address this issue, possibly in future guidance. On September 7, 2017, OMB officials stated that there have been no changes to the status of this recommendation, but that they anticipate the recommendation will be considered further once the new FGDC Steering Committee leadership and membership are in place; and the NSDI Strategic Plan actions and the potential for a new geospatial policy update are determined. However, OMB did not provide anticipated dates for these activities.
    Recommendation: To better facilitate the coordination of--and accountability for--the estimated billions of dollars in federal geospatial investments, to reduce duplication, and to help ensure the success of departmental efforts to improve geospatial coordination and reduce duplication, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the designated senior agency official for geospatial information to develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses the Geospatial Platform Marketplace before it expends funds to collect or produce new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts to obtain the data are possible.

    Agency: Department of Agriculture
    Status: Open

    Comments: The United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) issued a departmental regulation in August 2016 covering enterprise geospatial data management. The regulation applies to all Agriculture agencies, organizations and contractors, and addresses all geospatial authoritative data sources. It states that all Agriculture agencies and staff offices will follow documented procedures approved by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to conduct a formal search of the Geospatial Marketplace prior to expending funds for geospatial data acquisitions. However, Agriculture has yet to provide the OCIO-approved documented procedures, or evidence of their implementation. According to an Agriculture official in July 2017, the new procedures are under review, and they hope to have implemented them by the end of December 2017.
    Recommendation: To increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data, Congress should consider assessing the impact of the disclosure restrictions of Section 9 of Title 13 and Section 412 of Title 39 of the U.S. Code in moving toward a national geospatial address database. If warranted, Congress should consider revising those statutes to authorize the limited release of addresses, without any personally identifiable information, specifically for geospatial purposes. Such a change, if deemed appropriate, could potentially result in significant savings across federal, state, and local governments.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: There has been no legislative action identified as of August 16, 2017. Addressing this action, which GAO suggested in February 2015, could increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data.
    Director: Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: If, in the next authorization for FAA, Congress chooses to mandate that FAA take actions to streamline and reform the agency, Congress may wish to consider requiring FAA to (1) track measures of and (2) report to Congress on the actual results of such efforts.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: FAA's authorization expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2015. As of May 2017, Congress has passed several FAA authorization extensions that did not include any actions related to this matter. We will continue to monitor legislation, and when we determine what steps the Congress has taken regarding this matter, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better enable FAA to track, aggregate, and report on the results of its streamlining and reform initiatives, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FAA to develop a mechanism to capture the results of its efficiency initiatives in its planned database for process improvements. Measures of results might include, for example, cost savings, timeliness, or customer service metrics, which may be common to several types of process improvement efforts and therefore facilitate aggregation across improvements.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, FAA expanded its existing data repository to include results of the efficiency initiatives, but no realized results or benefits have yet been entered into the data repository. GAO will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
    Director: Maurer, Diana C
    Phone: (202) 512-9627

    3 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To promote coordination as a practice to help avoid overlap, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of ONDCP should work through the Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee (ISA IPC) or otherwise collaborate to develop a mechanism, such as performance metrics related to coordination, that will allow them to hold field-based information-sharing entities accountable for coordinating with each other and monitor and evaluate the coordination results achieved.

    Agency: Department of Justice
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ), in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), has made progress toward addressing GAO's April 2013 recommendation but has not included all of the relevant field-based information sharing entities in its efforts. Through their involvement in an interagency policy committee within the Executive Office of the President, DHS, DOJ, and ONDCP have developed a mechanism to hold state and urban area fusion centers, Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers accountable for coordinating their analytical and investigative activities. However, the agencies have not fully addressed the action because DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) and Field Intelligence Groups (FIG), two of the five field-based entities included in GAO's April 2013 report, have not participated in the assessment on which the mechanism is based. In December 2015, DHS developed a field-based partners report in which DHS, DOJ and ONDCP reported data for state and urban area fusion centers, RISS centers, and HIDTA Investigative Support Centers. These data were focused on field-based collaboration, including governance, colocation, and other information sharing, analytic, and deconfliction-focused topics. However, the report did not include data for DOJ's JTTFs or FIGs. DOJ has noted that JTTFs and FIGs are different from the other entities because JTTFs are operational law enforcement investigative entities and FIGs provide intelligence support to FBI Field Offices. However, GAO's April 2013 report identified areas in which the missions and activities of JTTFs and FIGs overlapped with those of the other entities and that coordination with other field based entities was important to prevent unnecessary overlap and potential duplication. Considering the exclusion of two of the five entities, the agencies do not have a collective mechanism that can hold FIGS and JTTFs accountable for coordinating with the other field-based information sharing entities and allow the agencies to monitor progress and evaluate results across entities. Such a mechanism can help entities maintain effective relationships when new leadership is assigned and avoid unnecessary overlap in activities, which in turn can help entities to leverage scarce resources. As of March 2017, DOJ had provided no new updates. GAO will continue to monitor DOJ's progress in this area.
    Recommendation: To help identify where agencies and the field-based entities they support could apply coordination mechanisms to enhance information sharing and reduce inefficiencies resulting from overlap, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of ONDCP should work through the ISA IPC or otherwise collaborate to identify characteristics of entities and assess specific geographic areas in which practices that could enhance coordination and reduce unnecessary overlap, such as cross-entity participation on governance boards and colocation of entities, could be further applied. The results of this assessment could be used by the agencies to provide recommendations or guidance to the entities to create coordinated governance boards or colocate entities, which can result in increased efficiencies through shared facilities and resources and reduced overlap through coordinated or collaborative products, activities, and services.

    Agency: Department of Justice
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ), in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), has made progress toward addressing GAO's April 2013 recommendation but has not included all of the relevant field-based information sharing entities in its efforts. The three agencies have taken the necessary steps to assess the extent to which practices that can enhance coordination are being implemented at state and urban area fusion centers, Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers through their involvement in an interagency policy committee within the Executive Office of the President. However, the assessment did not include DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) or Field Intelligence Groups (FIG), two of the five field-based entities included in GAO's April 2013 report. In December 2015, DHS, DOJ, and ONDCP developed a field-based partners report in which DOJ and ONDCP collected and reported data elements for RISS centers and HIDTA Investigative Support Centers similar to those DHS uses in its annual fusion center assessment. These data were focused on field-based collaboration, including governance, colocation, and other information sharing, analytic, and deconfliction-focused topics. However, the report did not include data for DOJ's FBI JTTFs or FIGs. A collaborative assessment of where practices that enhance coordination can be applied to reduce overlap, collaborate, and leverage resources for all five field-based information-sharing entities would allow the agencies to provide recommendations or guidance to the entities on implementing these practices. As of March 2017, DOJ had provided no new updates. GAO will continue to monitor DOJ's progress in this area.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that an assessment of practices that could enhance coordination and reduce unnecessary overlap is shared and used to further enhance collaboration and efficiencies across agencies, the Program Manager, with input from the ISA IPC collaborating agencies, should report in the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) annual report to Congress the results of the assessment, including any additional coordination practices identified, efficiencies realized, or actions planned.

    Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Program Manager--Information Sharing Environment
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. Status last updated August 31, 2017.
    Director: Powner, David A
    Phone: (202) 512-9286

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should designate a senior agency official who has departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority for geospatial information issues. The Secretary of Transportation direct the designated senior official for geospatial information to prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing geographic information and related geospatial data activities appropriate to its mission.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2016, a Transportation official told GAO that the department had completed a draft of the geospatial strategic plan that month. According to a Transportation official, as of March 1, 2017, the draft was under review. On September 8, 2017, a Transportation official stated that the department plans to issue the plan by November 1, 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve OMB oversight of geospatial information and assets, and minimize duplication of federal geospatial investments, the Director of OMB should develop a mechanism, or modify existing mechanisms, to identify and report annually on all geospatial related investments, including dollars invested and the nature of the investment.

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

    Comments: OMB has made progress in developing a way to identify and report annually on all geospatial-related investments, but has not completed its efforts. In March 2014, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) issued its National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Management Plan. The plan was developed in conjunction with OMB officials. One of the objectives of the plan is to develop and apply a standard definition of a geospatial investment in order to facilitate reporting on budgeted geospatial data investments, due to the fact that different definitions are being used by OMB, the FGDC community, and individual agencies. There are two supporting actions for this objective. The first action was completed with the finalization and issuance of the FGDC's Geospatial Investment Definitions for Tracking and Reporting Geospatial Investment Costs document in April 2016. The document contains a set of geospatial definitions with specific examples for each. The second action is for the geospatial community to apply the definitions in submissions to OMB during the annual federal government budget planning and reporting process. According to FGDC officials, they expect this to be challenging for a number of reasons, including the need for agencies to determine how they can align their investment tracking systems to accommodate the new definitions and the extent to which agencies will be able to use a common reporting capability. As a result, a two-pronged approach is being used. First, FGDC developed a reporting method using the theme implementation plans to support federal geospatial data investment tracking. For example, in February 2017, an official provided an implementation plan from January 2017 which included an estimate of the amount of time federal employees spent on NGDA work, and reported this as a percentage of full-time equivalents. Second, OMB worked with FGDC to revise geospatial investment reporting guidance found in OMB Circular No. A-11. Starting with fiscal year 2018 allocations (Circular No. A-11 revised July 2016), agencies are required to report on annual aggregated geospatial data investments of $100,000 or greater using the Marketplace feature of the Geospatial Platform. According to an agency official, this approach leverages existing, federal government-wide reporting methods already in place and minimizes the potential for agencies to implement separate, potentially duplicative reporting mechanisms that are not integrated with existing OMB reporting procedures. According to OMB officials as of September 7, 2017, OMB anticipates that since fiscal year 2018 will be the first year of implementation, some agencies may have challenges identifying and reporting their data. As a result, OMB states that the content and completeness of the reported information will need to be evaluated prior to determining its fitness and application for overseeing geospatial investments.