Recommendation: GSA should assess and address the reliability of the information used to calculate reported cost savings for the broker program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: GSA should develop outcome-based metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of using brokers to supplement the GSA's leasing workforce. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct EPA officials responsible for appointing advisory committee members to follow a key step in its appointment process—developing and including draft membership grids in appointment packets with staff rationales for proposed membership—for all committees. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, EPA restated its reasons for disagreeing with this recommendation. (EPA's rationale for disagreeing was originally stated in a June 2019 letter included in an appendix in our report.) We will provide updated information regarding this recommendation when it becomes available.

Recommendation: EPA's Designated Agency Ethics Official should direct EPA's Ethics Office, as part of its periodic review of EPA's ethics program, to evaluate—for example, through audits or spot-checks—the quality of financial disclosure reviews for special government employees appointed to EPA advisory committees. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, EPA notified GAO that it expects to launch an electronic financial disclosure reporting system for special government employees in January 2021. Once financial disclosure forms for these individuals are available electronically, EPA's Ethics Office will be better positioned to audit or review the forms, according to EPA officials. In addition, the electronic filing system should minimize errors (e.g. failing to record the date that the form was received) made by filers and reviewers, according to EPA officials.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should consistently document CEBR program-wide goals to clarify intended program results. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is building a logic model for the CEBR program that will provide the basis for addressing this recommendation. According to OJP, this logic model will more clearly align CEBR program goals and objectives with permitted program activities and associated performance measures. OJP had originally planned to finalize this logic model by March 2020 and share it--including any resulting changes in how program goals are articulated--with the CEBR stakeholder community in advance of the fiscal year 2021 grant cycle, beginning October 1, 2020. In June 2020, OJP reported that the CEBR program was transferred from OJP's National Institute of Justice to OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance. As a result, OJP reported that plans to finalize and communicate the CEBR logic model have been postponed. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the winter of 2020-2021 to obtain documentation on the logic model and how they are communicating it. This will enable GAO to determine if the model--and OJP's efforts to communicate it to stakeholders--meets the intent of the recommendation by consistently documenting CEBR program-wide goals and clarifying intended results.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should ensure that performance measures for each CEBR program-wide goal fully reflect appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is reviewing each CEBR program performance measure as part of its process for creating a CEBR program logic model. According to OJP, the purpose of this review is to ensure the measures are meaningful and have the right attributes. In June 2020, OJP reported that, as appropriate, updated performance measures will be included in the fiscal year 2021 CEBR grant program solicitation--which they anticipate releasing in early 2021. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the spring of 2021 to obtain documentation of changes to performance measures, and to determine whether updated performance measures meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should document which employee positions have been delegated certification (final signature) authority for confidential financial disclosure reports and specify required levels of review and approval. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, OJP provided a memo sent by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP to OJP components, dated March 2020. This memo states that supervisors are to review and sign reports, and notes that secondary supervisors may review and sign reports as Final Reviewing Officials, but it is not mandatory. This is a positive step, but does not fully meet the intent of the recommendation because it is not clear if immediate supervisors have been delegated final signature authority. Specifically, there are two places for signature on the reports (1) "Signature and Title of Supervisor/Other Intermediate Reviewer," and (2) "Signature and Title of Agency's Final Reviewing Official" (certification). According to Office of Government Ethics' regulation and guidance, review and signature of a supervisor or other intermediate reviewer is optional, but review and signature of a Final Reviewing Official-who has been delegated authority to certify reports-is required. OJP's memo states that secondary supervisors may sign as Final Reviewing Officials (i.e. have been delegated this authority), but OJP's memo is not clear if immediate supervisors have also been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials. To address this discrepancy and enable GAO to close this recommendation as "implemented," OJP needs to clarify who has been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should (1) clarify its guidance to grantees to specify what their requirements are under 28 C.F.R. pt. 69 with regard to obtaining lobbying certification documents, and obtaining and forwarding to OJP lobbying disclosure forms, from tiers beneath them; and (2) design a control to follow-up with grantees to help ensure they are meeting these requirements. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OJP reported that it plans to (1) issue guidance to all OJP funding recipients to remind them of lobbying disclosure requirements and provide instructions for how to submit the disclosures, and (2) implement an updated in-depth monitoring checklist whereby OJP can ensure applicable lobbying disclosure forms are collected and submitted to OJP. OJP stated that it plans to take these steps by October 1, 2020. GAO will follow-up in late 2020 to obtain and review all relevant documentation and ensure that these steps meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider legislation requiring comprehensive and timely information on political appointees serving in the executive branch to be collected and made publicly accessible. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, no bills have been introduced related to this matter. When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should implement procedures to track and verify that required employees complete initial ethics training and that completion of this training is documented. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SBA officials provided documentation, including internal operating procedures for certifying and tracking initial ethics training, to support that they have taken initial steps to address our recommendation. In a letter dated September 13, 2019, SBA's Designated Agency Ethics Official stated that, since February 2019, SBA has used those procedures to document the provision of initial ethics training to political appointees. In that letter, SBA stated that it planned to provide additional documentation to GAO to support this action. When we receive this documentation, we will assess the implementation of SBA;s new procedures to confirm that, in operation, these procedures meet the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Departmental Ethics Office, in conjunction with the Chief Human Capital Officer, to develop, document, and implement a strategic workforce planning process that aligns with its ongoing departmental reorganization and that is tailored to the specific needs of the ethics program. As part of this process, Interior should monitor and assess the critical skills and competencies that its ethics program needs presently and is projected to need in the future. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of reorganizing the Department's ethics program, including working with the Chief Human Capital Officer to develop and implement strategic workforce planning. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should ensure that the department's ethics program policies and procedures are documented and easily accessible to program staff. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of developing ethics program policies and procedures. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. Once finalized, Interior plans to make ethics program policies and procedures easily accessible to the program staff. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of examination teams internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank, such as the decision whether to issue a Matter Requiring Attention, among others. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that consistently documenting internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank could increase the transparency and accountability of examination teams' findings and decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require that bank examination teams retain drafts of key documents, including the conclusion memorandum and supervisory letter, that record the supervisory review process. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that revising the policy to ensure that drafts of key documents are not deleted will help OCC increase the transparency and accountability of the supervisory review process.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of communications with banks, including those between executive and senior management and banks, that inform supervisory decisions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that having meeting minutes and other documentation of key communications would provide OCC with a more complete and transparent record of the information banks provide to examiners and how that information impacts supervisory decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should systematically track and monitor Large Bank Supervisions use of informal recommendations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that tracking and monitoring the use of informal recommendations could increase transparency of the supervisory process, which could help Large Bank Supervision mitigate the risk of regulatory capture.

Recommendation: The Chief Counsel should develop a policy for Large Bank Supervision (1) to check employees active conflicts of interests during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities and (2) to document the results of this check. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020,, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and does not plan to develop a policy to check if employees have active conflicts of interest during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities. OCC noted in its December 2018 response letter to the report that they believed such a policy would shift the responsibility for ensuring compliance with recusal requirements from employees to those responsible for staffing. We maintain that this recommendation does not aim to alleviate the personal responsibility all employees have to comply with recusal requirements. Rather, our recommendation aims to strengthen the due diligence of those responsible for staffing by requiring an independent, preliminary check of active conflicts of interest.

Recommendation: As the Board of Governors implements plans to develop an ERM framework, it should include a component to identify and assess risks of regulatory capture across the LISCC program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors reported to us that it was developing its ERM framework. The Board added that it was establishing a Board Risk Committee (comprised of senior leaders) to oversee its ERM program and serve as the central forum for addressing Board-wide risk issues. The Board also said that it has begun to implement a number of strategic components of the ERM framework. In August 2019, the Board stated that in their view, the ERM framework they are developing would not significantly alter the management processes that the Board and System have in place under the LISCC program that continue to work effectively. The Board reported to us that it has continued to develop the ERM program with guidance of the Board Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, and continues to serve as the central forum for Board-wide risk issues and oversight of the ERM program. In August 2020, the Board added that it would take several years to develop the ERM program. The Board also will continue to implement strategic components of the ERM framework throughout the Board.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2019 update. In August 2019, the Board of Governors told us that the LISCC supervisory program had taken several steps to "finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies." The Board reported that in 2017 it had issued a near-final LISCC program manual, which they said will memorialize all aspects of the LISCC supervisory program. The Board added the updated manual will reflect the results of a self-assessment of the LISCC Program's first full year of operations under the LISCC core program model, and the initial implementation of the new Large Financial Institution Ratings Framework. The Board also said that, since the last update, the LISCC supervisory program's operating policies, procedures, and templates for the conduct of supervisory activities have been completed and implemented.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should streamline its conflict-of-interest disclosure review process for participants in the LISCC program, such as by storing disclosure information in compatible electronic systems. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they were assessing the feasibility of integrating existing electronic systems. They added that they have drafted guidance that develops a LISCC-specific conflicts of interest and examiner credential program that will seek to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of conflicts of interest rules for all staff, both at the Board and the Reserve Banks, that participate in the LISCC supervisory program. They said that the Board plans to issue this guidance and begin implementation of a more consistent and centralized disclosure review approach in 2018. In addition, they said that they have begun collecting and storing conflicts of interest disclosure information for all LISCC participants, including Board LISCC staff, in one electronic system. They added that they have provided initial training to Board LISCC staff on the disclosure review process and the electronic system to ensure consistent collection of conflicts of interest data for all LISCC participants.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should systematically collect and maintain information on the institutions supervisory employees work for before they are hired by the Federal Reserve and their employment destination when they leave. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they had implemented policies intended to mitigate the risk that an employee may be influenced by prior employment or the prospect of future employment and place their private interests ahead of the organization's supervisory mission. As an example, they said that recently the Federal Reserve broadened the scope of post-employment restrictions applicable to senior examiners. They added that the Board has begun to develop a more systematic approach to collect and monitor pre- and post-employment data through the use of an electronic system. They said that this updated electronic system is scheduled to be released, for both Board and Reserve Banks use, in 2019.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should conduct a periodic self-assessment of ethics programs, policies, and procedures that apply to LISCC program participants. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that their Ethics program staff and Supervision & Regulation staff are jointly assessing the current ethics programs, policies, and procedures applicable to LISCC program participants. The Federal Reserve expects to finalize and implement new conflicts of interest policies and procedures applicable to LISCC participants in 2019.

Recommendation: To improve technical expertise and overcome fragmentation, the CDC director of the Select Agent Program should work with APHIS to develop a joint workforce plan that assesses workforce and training needs for the program as a whole. This assessment should be done in conjunction with the development of the strategic plan. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open

Comments: CDC agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.

Recommendation: To improve technical expertise and overcome fragmentation, the APHIS director of the Select Agent Program should work with CDC to develop a joint workforce plan that assesses workforce and training needs for the program as a whole. This assessment should be done in conjunction with the development of the strategic plan. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: APHIS agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.

Recommendation: The Director of the USMS should develop and implement a mechanism to provide specific feedback to employees on the results of the promotion process, including their readiness for promotion. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Justice: United States Marshals Service
Status: Open

Comments: USMS concurred with this recommendation and said that it is taking steps to implement it. In August 2018, USMS began providing feedback reports to employees completing the redesigned competency assessment process, which include detailed breakouts of scores by competency. However, these reports do not contain specific feedback, including the employee's readiness for promotion. As of June 2019, USMS is finalizing plans to provide training to employees on the GS-13 and GS-14 competencies. As of August 2020, USMS is building development programs and computer-based courses for each grade level, including GS-13 and GS-14. To fully address this recommendation, USMS should provide information on efforts or plans to provide specific feedback to employees, including on their readiness for promotion, and provide final training plans.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to strengthen procedures in place to guide Reserve Banks' efforts to manage emergency program access for higher-risk borrowers by providing more specific guidance on how Reserve Bank staff should exercise discretion and document decisions to restrict or deny program access for depository institutions and primary dealers that would otherwise be eligible for emergency assistance.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document a plan for estimating and tracking losses that could occur under more adverse economic conditions within and across all emergency lending activities and for using this information to inform policy decisions, such as decisions to limit risk exposures through program design or restrictions applied to eligible borrowing institutions.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document the Federal Reserve Board's guidance to Reserve Banks on types of emergency program decisions and risk events that require approval by or consultation with the Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, or other designated groups or officials at the Federal Reserve Board.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To better ensure FDA's oversight of the safety of GRAS substances, the Commissioner of FDA should develop a strategy to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including taking steps such as issuing guidance for companies on conflict of interest and requiring information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists' independence.

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

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FDA published a notification of availability for the draft guidance "Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel: Guidance for Industry," with a request for comments on the draft guidance by May 15, 2018. FDA indicated that the draft guidance represents FDA's current thinking on strategies to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including assessing potential GRAS panel members for conflicts of interest. As of July 2020, FDA had not yet finalized the guidance, so we are leaving the recommendation open.