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: "Public health and safety"

    2 publications with a total of 8 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: David C. Trimble
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    3 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should take the steps needed to include category 3 sources in the National Source Tracking System and add agreement state category 3 licenses to the Web-based Licensing System as quickly as reasonably possible.

    Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for Category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation will consider GAO's recommendations. This re-evaluation is due to be submitted to the Commission by August 2017.
    Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should at least until such time that category 3 licenses can be verified using the License Verification System, require that transferors of category 3 quantities of radioactive materials confirm the validity of a would-be purchaser's radioactive materials license with the appropriate regulatory authority before transferring any category 3 quantities of licensed materials.

    Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for Category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation will consider GAO's recommendations. This re-evaluation is due to be submitted to the Commission by August 2017. The License Verification and Transfer of Category 3 Sources Working Group (LVWG) evaluated this recommendation, and its analysis will be considered by the Category 3 Source Security and Accountability Working Group in the development of the notation vote paper that will be submitted to the Commission in August 2017.
    Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should, as part of the ongoing efforts of NRC working groups meeting to develop enhancements to the prelicensing requirements for category 3 licenses, consider requiring that an on-site security review be conducted for all unknown applicants of category 3 licenses to verify that each applicant is prepared to implement the required security measures before taking possession of licensed radioactive materials.

    Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for Category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation will consider GAO's recommendations. This re-evaluation is due to be submitted to the Commission by August 2017.
    Director: J. Christopher Mihm
    Phone: (202) 512-6806

    5 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are led by the agency head or COO.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2016, the DCMO and DOD Chief Information Officer released a memorandum stating that DOD would no longer hold in-person quarterly reviews of progress on APGs, and that the only issues that would be reviewed are those "requiring specific visibility." This approach is not consistent with the requirements of GPRAMA or OMB guidance, which require agencies to hold in-person, leadership-driven reviews of progress on all APGs at least once each quarter. We will continue to monitor the status of agency actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are used to review progress on all APGs at least once a quarter, discuss at-risk goals and improvement strategies, and assess whether specific program activities, policies, or other activities are contributing to goals as planned.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2016 the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) and DOD Chief Information Officer released a memorandum stating that DOD would no longer hold in-person quarterly reviews of progress on APGs, and that the only issues that would be reviewed are those "requiring specific visibility." This approach is not consistent with the requirements of GPRAMA or OMB guidance, which require that agencies hold in-person reviews of progress on all APGs and identify any necessary improvement strategies at least once each quarter. We will continue to monitor the status of agency actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are used by participants to identify, agree upon, document and track follow-up actions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2016, the DCMO and DOD Chief Information Officer released a memorandum stating that DOD would no longer hold in-person quarterly reviews of progress on agency priority goals (APGs), and that the only issues that would be reviewed are those "requiring specific visibility." This approach is not consistent with OMB guidance or leading practices, which state that agencies should identify follow-up actions and responsible parties for implementing them, and subsequently track their status at in-person reviews at least once each quarter. We will continue to monitor the status of agency actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that progress on each APG is reviewed in an in-person review meeting at least quarterly.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to State Department staff, as of June 2016, the department continues to hold in-person review meetings for APGs involving agency leaders, goal leaders, and other stakeholders only once a year. We will continue to monitor the status of agency actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that the reviews are led by the agency head or COO.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to information provided by State Department officials in June 2016, the department's in-person review meetings continue to be led by the PIO. Although the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, who serves as the State Department's COO, receives a quarterly written summary of progress on State's APGs, this approach is not consistent with the requirements of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) or Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance that the agency head and/or the COO conduct quarterly, in-person reviews. We will continue to monitor the status of agency actions to address this recommendation.