Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. 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. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
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.
Results:
Subject Term: "Academic achievement"
GAO-19-616, Sep 19, 2019
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation. The agency said that its Office of Elementary and Secondary Education will restructure its entire website to better organize its information, and create a new web page to house all foster care-related information and resources. Additionally, Education said this office will launch a virtual portal through which SEA foster care points of contact may collaborate and share resources. We will consider closing this recommendation when these efforts are complete.
GAO-17-400, Apr 26, 2017
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations; rather, it generally noted that it will keep our recommendations in mind as it continues to implement changes in the program as a result of ESSA. We will monitor the agency's progress and consider closing it when the agency provides documentation that these efforts are complete.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation, but stated that it was taking some actions to enhance program data. We will monitor the agency's progress and consider closing it when the agency provides documentation that these efforts are complete.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation, but identified steps it plans to take to implement it. We will monitor the agency's progress and consider closing it when the agency provides documentation that these efforts are complete.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation, but identified steps it plans to take to implement it. We will monitor the agency's progress and consider closing it when the agency provides documentation that these efforts are complete.
GAO-15-59, Dec 22, 2014
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, noting that it is committed to identifying ways to use data about and from accreditors in its oversight. As of December 2017, Education has taken steps to track the number of accreditor sanctions issued by each accrediting agency. Education previously noted that this information will then be used to focus their limited resources on those accrediting agencies with extremely low or high sanction rates, to strengthen its oversight of accreditors. In April 2018, Education reported that it tracks accreditor sanctions and is aware of the number of sanctions when conducting agency reviews. They found no correlation between the number of sanctions an accrediting agency levies against its accredited institutions and compliance or noncompliance with the Criteria for Recognition, so they noted that this is not a useful tool. However, we continue to believe that implementing the recommendation could help inform Education's reviews of accreditors and ultimately reduce potential risk to students and federal funds. For example, analyses of accreditor sanction data could help reveal patterns in individual accreditor behavior and overall trends in sanctions. In addition, as we noted in the report, Education could compare accreditor sanction data with outcome data for accreditors' member institutions. These analyses could help Education determine how to better use data in decision-making, which is a goal listed in their 2014 strategic plan (cited in the report), as well as help to identify potential risks the accreditors might face. To close this recommendation, Education should show that it uses sanction data to inform its discussions of accreditor recognition and oversight.