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: "Joint forces"

    2 publications with a total of 5 open recommendations
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To assess and enhance the value of Pacific Pathways, and to fully determine the value of Pacific Pathways and communicate it to decision makers, the Secretary of the Army direct the Commander of U.S. Army Pacific to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of Pacific Pathways relative to its costs. Such an analysis could both: (1) incorporate financial and non-financial costs and benefits of the initiative, to include readiness benefits for logistics and sustainment units, any training efficiencies or cost avoidance resulting from Pacific Pathways, and non-financial costs, such as decreased equipment readiness rates; and (2) compare the costs with the benefits of training conducted under the Pacific Pathways initiative against that conducted through other Army trainings, such as home station training, combat training centers, or other exercises.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, officials reiterated USARPAC's position that the command does not plan to conduct a deliberate analysis of the costs of Pacific Pathways relative to its benefits. However, USARPAC is currently studying the impacts of Pacific Pathways on sustainable readiness. Headquarters, Department of the Army has requested the results of this study by September 2018. Pending completion of that study or other related actions, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To assess and enhance the value of Pacific Pathways, and to better synchronize planning across all commands and units and thereby achieve a more cohesive operation, the Secretary of the Army direct the Commander of U.S. Army Pacific to modify existing USARPAC and I Corps planning processes and clarify guidance, as appropriate, that integrates all stakeholders and clearly identifies the objectives, assumptions, and level of authority appropriate for key decisions prior to the exercise planning cycle for each Pathway operation.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, USARPAC officials stated that the command is still working on actions to address this recommendation, with a target completion date of September 2017. Pending those efforts, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To assess and enhance the value of Pacific Pathways, and to more fully leverage the theater-wide training value of Pacific Pathways for all participating units, the Secretary of the Army direct the Commander of U.S. Army Pacific to seek and incorporate supporting units' training objectives, as appropriate, into the Pacific Pathways planning process.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, USARPAC officials stated that the command is still working on actions to address this recommendation, with a target completion date of September 2017. Pending those efforts, this recommendation remains open.
    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.