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: "Stakeholder consultations"

    4 publications with a total of 9 open recommendations including 1 priority recommendation
    Director: Clowers, Angela N
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    4 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of October 2016, FSOC staff have said FSOC and its members, including OFR, understand their responsibilities, saying that meetings of FSOC's Systemic Risk Committee help to ensure that FSOC member agencies have clarity on their responsibilities and noted that the committee operated under a charter. However, our review of the charter found that it does not clarify responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability. They also stated that actions OFR and the Federal Reserve (both of which serve on the Systemic Risk Committee) agreed to take in response to a recommendation in a GAO report issued in February 2016 would help to clarify these responsibilities. However, these represent just two of FSOC's member agencies; similar collaborative steps by other agencies would support the clarity of roles for monitoring threats to financial stability. We maintain that more specific action from FSOC and OFR, including FSOC member and member agencies, is needed to address this recommendation that ensures clarity of roles and responsibilities in proactively and comprehensively monitoring for potential emerging threats in the financial system. Our past work has shown that the lack of clear roles and coordination can lead to duplication, confusion, and regulatory gaps.
    Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

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

    Comments: As of March 2017, OFR has taken some steps to work with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a member agency of FSOC, to organize semi-annual meetings to jointly discuss views from their respective monitoring of the financial system for risks. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability across all the agencies that are members of FSOC.
    Recommendation: To strengthen accountability and collaboration in FSOC's decision making, FSOC should establish a collaborative and comprehensive framework for assessing the impact of its decisions for designating FMUs and nonbank financial companies on the wider economy and those entities. This framework should include assessing the effects of subjecting designated FMUs and nonbank financial companies to new regulatory standards, requirements, and restrictions; establishing a baseline from which to measure the effects; and documenting the approach.

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

    Comments: In response to an April 2017 presidential memorandum, Treasury is conducting a review of FSOC's designation process, including an assessment of the effects of designating FMUs and nonbank financial companies. This review will result in a report. We will update the status of this recommendation after we have reviewed the report.
    Recommendation: To strengthen accountability and collaboration in FSOC's decision making, FSOC should develop more systematic forward-looking approaches for reporting on potential emerging threats to financial stability in annual reports. Such an approach should provide methodological insight into why certain threats to financial stability are included or excluded over time, separate current or past threats from those that are potentially emerging, and prioritize the latter.

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

    Comments: When FSOC publishes its annual report for 2017 and we have reviewed it, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Goldstein, Mark L
    Phone: (202)512-6670

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General should instruct the Director of FPS, and the Director of the Marshals Service, respectively, to jointly lead an effort, in consultation and agreement with the judiciary and GSA, to update the MOA on courthouse security to address the challenges discussed in this report. Specifically, in this update to the MOA stakeholders should: (1) clarify federal stakeholders' roles and responsibilities including, but not limited to, the conditions under which stakeholders may assume each other's responsibilities and whether such agreements should be documented; and define GSA's responsibilities and determine whether GSA should be included as a signatory to the updated MOA; (2) outline how they will ensure greater participation of relevant stakeholders in court or facility security committees; and (3) specify how they will complete required risk assessments for courthouses, referred to by the Marshals Service as court security facility surveys and by FPS as facility security assessments (FSA), and ensure that the results of those assessments are shared with relevant stakeholders, as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2017, The Federal Protective Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and General Services Administration were working to update the memorandum of agreement on courthouse security. An updated memorandum has been drafted, but it has yet to be signed by all parties. Consequently, resolution of this recommendation is pending until further action is taken.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General should instruct the Director of FPS, and the Director of the Marshals Service, respectively, to jointly lead an effort, in consultation and agreement with the judiciary and GSA, to update the MOA on courthouse security to address the challenges discussed in this report. Specifically, in this update to the MOA stakeholders should: (1) clarify federal stakeholders' roles and responsibilities including, but not limited to, the conditions under which stakeholders may assume each other's responsibilities and whether such agreements should be documented; and define GSA's responsibilities and determine whether GSA should be included as a signatory to the updated MOA; (2) outline how they will ensure greater participation of relevant stakeholders in court or facility security committees; and (3) specify how they will complete required risk assessments for courthouses, referred to by the Marshals Service as court security facility surveys and by FPS as facility security assessments (FSA), and ensure that the results of those assessments are shared with relevant stakeholders, as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Justice
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2017, The Federal Protective Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and General Services Administration were working to update the memorandum of agreement on courthouse security. An updated memorandum has been drafted, but it has yet to be signed by all parties. Consequently, resolution of this recommendation is pending until further action is taken.
    Director: Draper, Debra A
    Phone: (202) 512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to finalize new, more specific guidance on the definition of a 340B patient.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included further specificity on the definition of 340B patient in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register.
    Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to issue guidance to further specify the criteria that hospitals that are not publicly owned or operated must meet to be eligible for the 340B program.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included additional specificity regarding hospital eligibility in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register.
    Director: Crosse, Marcia G
    Phone: (202)512-3407

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA's overseas offices are able to fully meet their mission of helping to ensure the safety of imported products, the Commissioner of FDA should ensure, as it completes its strategic planning process for the overseas offices, that it develops a set of performance goals and measures that can be used to demonstrate overseas office contributions to long-term outcomes related to the regulation of imported products and that overseas office activities are coordinated with the centers and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA).

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2017, FDA reported that it remains committed to strengthening its efforts and systematically monitoring and evaluating the overseas offices' contributions to the agency's mission and objectives. FDA also stated that it is making significant progress in several areas by enhancing strategic planning and analysis, refining the Office of International Program's (OIP) performance metrics, and designing a monitoring and evaluation plan. For example, FDA stated it has developed a framework with refined performance metrics to distinguish and assess the distinct contribution of OIP and its foreign offices towards program objectives and broader agency goals. FDA said that the performance metrics will track and monitor the quantity, quality, and timeliness of activity outputs and intermediate outcomes resulting from OIP's work. The measures have been standardized and defined, and will be further disaggregated to enable various levels of analyses, including distinguishing the unique efforts by foreign offices and product type. According to FDA, it plans to roll out its performance framework, related metrics, and monitoring and evaluation processes in fiscal year 2018. FDA said it anticipates that its performance measures, enhanced monitoring, and increased sharing of best practices across foreign offices and FDA headquarters will facilitate tracking of performance, allow greater accountability, and provide a foundation for continuous improvement. GAO will continue to monitor FDA's progress.