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: "Executive agency oversight"

    6 publications with a total of 14 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: Michael J. Sullivan
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance program oversight and provide more robust input to budget deliberations, Congress should consider requiring DOD to report on each major acquisition program's systems engineering status in the department's annual budget request, beginning with the budget requesting funds to start development. The information could be presented on a simple timeline--as done for the case studies in this report--and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program's functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program's systems engineering plan.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Congress has not yet taken action on the matter for consideration. GAO will continue to monitor.
    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: Beryl H. Davis
    Phone: (202) 512-2623

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide increased performance audit coverage of Commerce's bureaus and offices, the Commerce IG should augment the OIG's risk-based audit planning process to consider (1) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices to help ensure that the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of their programs are periodically reviewed and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO.

    Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has taken actions to augment its annual risk assessment to consider (I) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO. For example, OIG's fiscal year (FY) 2016 audit plan included performance audits of Bureau of Industry and Security, Economic Development Administration, and Economic Development Administration, which are three of Commerce's smaller bureaus. It also included a performance audit of federal real property, a high-risk area identified by GAO. Further, OIG indicated completion of its FY 2017 risk assessment in June, and will be completing its FY 2017 audit plan in September - which will include performance audits of several of the Commerce's smaller bureaus, as well as consider the following high-risk areas identified by GAO in its 2015 report that could be applicable to Commerce. We believe OIG met the intent of GAO recommendation with regards to augmenting its annual risk assessment to consider (1) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO. We base our conclusion given that OIG has either conducted or scheduled to conduct performance audits to cover smaller bureaus and high-risk areas identified by GAO, which we verified on the OIG's website. However, we believe the intent of GAO's recommendation is for these audits to be performed in subsequent years going forward and not just in FY 2017. OIG was not able to provide us support to show it has formal procedures or policies in place to ensure these performance audits will be performed in future years on a rotational and periodic basis. As a result, we don't believe DOC OIG has fully met the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that written hotline policies and procedures are consistently followed and complaints are handled effectively, the Commerce IG should enhance the existing internal control activities for the OIG's hotline operations through monitoring, including self-assessment evaluations conducted by the hotline unit of itself, periodic reviews of control design, and direct testing of internal controls.

    Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that it conducted a self-assessment of its hotline operations in fiscal year 2016, updated its complaint management policy, and is securing independent quality control reviews. We have reviewed OIG quality assessment memorandum dated 11/3/15 and verified it shows that OIG performed a self-assessment of its hotline operations, which included (1) evaluating proper handling of complaints; (2) assignment of disposition codes; and (3) time frames for processing complaints. In addition, we have reviewed OIG's updated complaint management policy and verified it contains detailed policies and procedures over its hotline operations. Therefore, we believe OIG met the intent of the recommendation with regards to conducting a self-assessment evaluation. However, we did not see where OIG met the intent of GAO recommendation with regards to having in place control activities for conducting periodic reviews of control design and direct testing of internal controls. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
    Director: Williamson, Randall B
    Phone: (206)287-4860

    3 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that servicemembers have equitable access to the military services' wounded warrior programs, including the RCP, and to establish central accountability for these programs, the Secretary of Defense should establish or designate an office to centrally oversee and monitor the activities of the military services' wounded warrior programs to include the following: (1) Develop consistent eligibility criteria to ensure that similarly situated recovering servicemembers from different military services have uniform access to these programs; (2) Direct the military services' wounded warrior programs to fully comply with the policies governing care coordination and case management programs and any future changes to these policies; (3) Develop a common mechanism to systematically monitor the performance of the wounded warrior programs--to include the establishment of common terms and definitions--and report this information on a biannual basis to the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD did not concur with our part (1) of our recommendation to develop consistent eligibility criteria, explaining that the three military department secretaries should have the ability to control entrance criteria into their wounded warrior programs and that varying eligibility criteria have not resulted in noticeable differences in access to these programs by recovering servicemembers or their families. In attachments to a memo dated April 8, 2014, DOD provided an update on progress made to implement parts (2) and (3) of the DOD-specific recommendation made in GAO-13-5. Regarding part (2), DOD reported that budget constraints had delayed its plan to conduct oversight visits to 63 service sites over a 12-month period to ensure that military wounded warrior programs were operating in compliance with DOD Recovery Coordinator Program policy. DOD stated that the Warrior Care Policy office, in coordination with the military service branches, had intended to begin these oversight visits and interviews in September 2013; that as of March 2014, five sites had been reviewed; and that results of the compliance visits would be available upon completion. Regarding part (3) of the recommendation, DOD's memo stated that DOD and VA continue work on developing policies on clinical and non-clinical care coordination. It also noted that interagency metrics for monitoring complex care coordination performance were under development by the DOD/VA Interagency Care Coordination Committee. Further, DOD stated that because the Joint Executive Council publishes an annual report, that reporting the progress in developing common terms and definitions used by wounded warrior programs to congressional committees would be of limited value. As of October 2016, when we determine what additional steps the agency has taken to implement this recommendation, we will update this information.
    Recommendation: To ensure that persistent challenges with care coordination, disability evaluation, and the electronic sharing of health records are fully resolved, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should ensure that these issues receive sustained leadership attention and collaboration at the highest levels with a singular focus on what is best for the individual servicemember or veteran to ensure continuity of care and a seamless transition from DOD to VA. This should include holding the Joint Executive Council accountable for (1) ensuring that key issues affecting recovering servicemembers and veterans get sufficient consideration, including recommendations made by the Warrior Care and Coordination Task Force and the Recovering Warrior Task Force; (2) developing mechanisms for making joint policy decisions; (3) involving the appropriate decision-makers for timely implementation of policy; and; (4) establishing mechanisms to systematically oversee joint initiatives and ensure that outcomes and goals are identified and achieved.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of October 2016, under the joint DOD/VA Interagency Care Coordination Committee, the departments have made progress to improve nonclinical care coordination procedures, primarily through the development of two initiatives?the Lead Coordinator initiative (in which a single care coordinator serves as the primary point of contact for a recovering servicemember) and through the use of a single, interagency care plan (ICP) for each recovering servicemember. As of March 2016, the departments were continuing the national rollout of the Lead Coordinator initiative and had trained nearly 3,700 DOD and VA personnel on the new process. In addition, DOD and VA continued the development of the ICP initiative, which will depend upon their ability to electronically exchange the information needed to implement servicemembers' care plans. In December 2015, DOD awarded a contract to support the ICP and to create electronic interoperability with VA. The departments anticipate testing their ability to exchange information digitally in June 2016 and achieving full operational capability by September 2016. We will continue to monitor progress to implement the joint Lead Coordinator and the ICP care coordination initiatives.
    Recommendation: To ensure that persistent challenges with care coordination, disability evaluation, and the electronic sharing of health records are fully resolved, the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should ensure that these issues receive sustained leadership attention and collaboration at the highest levels with a singular focus on what is best for the individual servicemember or veteran to ensure continuity of care and a seamless transition from DOD to VA. This should include holding the Joint Executive Council accountable for (1) ensuring that key issues affecting recovering servicemembers and veterans get sufficient consideration, including recommendations made by the Warrior Care and Coordination Task Force and the Recovering Warrior Task Force; (2) developing mechanisms for making joint policy decisions; (3) involving the appropriate decision-makers for timely implementation of policy; and; (4) establishing mechanisms to systematically oversee joint initiatives and ensure that outcomes and goals are identified and achieved.

    Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of October 2016, under the joint DOD/VA Interagency Care Coordination Committee, the departments have made progress to improve nonclinical care coordination procedures, primarily through the development of two initiatives?the Lead Coordinator initiative (in which a single care coordinator serves as the primary point of contact for a recovering servicemember) and through the use of a single, interagency care plan (ICP) for each recovering servicemember. As of March 2016, the departments were continuing the national rollout of the Lead Coordinator initiative and had trained nearly 3,700 DOD and VA personnel on the new process. In addition, DOD and VA continued the development of the ICP initiative, which will depend upon their ability to electronically exchange the information needed to implement servicemembers' care plans. In December 2015, DOD awarded a contract to support the ICP and to create electronic interoperability with VA. The departments anticipate testing their ability to exchange information digitally in June 2016 and achieving full operational capability by September 2016. We will continue to monitor progress to implement the joint Lead Coordinator and the ICP care coordination initiatives.
    Director: Chaplain, Cristina T
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct MDA to ensure that developmental hardware and software changes are not made to the operational baseline that disrupt the assessments needed to understand the capabilities and limitations of new BMDS developments.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. In the June 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), Missile Defense Agency (MDA) provided some operational baselines and continues to do so annually. Nonetheless, configuration changes continue to pose challenges to a thorough assessment of the BMDS architecture. For example, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation stated that the many configurations of the fielded ground-based interceptor inhibits a full evaluation of the GMD program. Moreover, some changes to BMDS elements are still delivered while testing of the architecture is already underway. We will continue to assess whether MDA fully adopts an approach allowing time for the warfighter and testers to fully understand hardware and software before placing it in the operational baseline.
    Director: Iritani, Katherine M
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance the transparency of CMS oversight and clarify and communicate the types of allowable state financing arrangements, the Administrator of CMS should provide each state CMS reviews under its initiative with specific and written explanations regarding agency determinations on the allowability of various arrangements for financing the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments and make these determinations available to all states and interested parties.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of July 2016, HHS officials reported that they have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.