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: "Data collection"
GAO-21-69, Oct 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-21-29, Oct 8, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-564, Sep 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-701, Sep 21, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-711R, Sep 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-599, Sep 8, 2020
Phone: (202)512-8777
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-433, Jul 14, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-534, Jun 12, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-473, Jun 5, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-372, May 13, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6888
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation and stated that it is developing a process whereby it will coordinate its efforts in infectious disease modeling across its components, including efforts to monitor, evaluate and report on its coordination. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to the recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to the recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-419, Apr 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, NHTSA reported that it plans to develop an evaluation plan for the CIREN pedestrian pilot program by April 30, 2021 to inform decisions about further investigative pedestrian crash studies. According to NHTSA this plan will address research needs categorized as either crash worthiness, crash avoidance, or behavioral in nature, and will include criteria for investigative study elements and the scope or scalability of those studies. NHTSA also reported that in developing the evaluation plan it will consider input from stakeholders, including the first-hand experience from the CIREN pilot study sites. GAO will continue to monitor NHTSA's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, NHTSA reported that it is developing proposed updates to NCAP, which it plans to publish in a notice in the Federal Register by the end of 2020. According to NHTSA this notice will clarify the process by which NHTSA updates NCAP, and after receiving and responding to comments, NHTSA plans to update its website to provide information to stakeholders on how the agency considers and finalizes changes to NCAP. GAO will continue to monitor NHTSA's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, NHTSA reported that it is developing its proposal on planned changes to NCAP, which is expected to include pedestrian safety tests, and is working to publish a notice to the Federal Register by the end of 2020. According to NHTSA, this process will include receiving public comment on the proposal, which the agency will consider in deciding and communicating NHTSA's next stages. As stated in GAO's report, in the absence of a decision on whether to include pedestrian safety testing in NCAP, and the rationale for that decision, stakeholders lack clarity on whether NHTSA is using all of the policy tools at its disposal to address emerging safety risks and to achieve its strategic objectives. GAO will continue to monitor NHTSA's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-345, Apr 21, 2020
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation stated that it would determine the best means to implement it. We will monitor the progress of their efforts.
GAO-20-216, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.
GAO-20-281, Mar 26, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-20-273, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (404) 679-1875
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-122, Oct 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
GAO-20-6, Oct 25, 2019
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: DOJ has taken a number of steps to address this recommendation, including creating a campus-specific brochure that highlights the Community Relations Service's (CRS) hate crimes prevention and response resources for campus stakeholders. CRS is also in the process of developing a comprehensive guide with best practices for and tools to aid in the planning and implementation of Campus SPIRIT programs and a "spotlight" article for the Department's hate crimes website. DOJ noted that the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is developing hate crimes-specific training curriculum to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, including those on campus. These are important steps to implement this recommendation, but because these resources are currently under development, this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: DOJ outlined steps it will take to work with campus-based law enforcement organizations such as the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, the International Association of Chiefs of Police's University and College Police Section, and the National Association of Student Affairs Professionals. This includes participating in a conference in June 2020 and contacting the groups to increase awareness of its hate crimes website. GAO has requested documentation to demonstrate this outreach has occurred.
GAO-20-109, Oct 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VA reported taking steps to share data on potential financial exploitation threats, but further opportunities to collect information exist. In February 2020, VA updated its policy manual, instructing Pension Management Centers to send copies of any OIG fraud referrals to VA's Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Incident Team. This team plans to use the information to identify trends in potential fraud, and recommend changes to VA laws, policies, or procedures, as needed. VA also plans to use this data to coordinate with other Government agencies and offices to help prevent financial exploitation. However, VA has not reported taking steps to collect information from its Office of General Counsel, Pension Management Centers, and other components on threats to veterans that do not result in fraud referrals to OIG. VA asserts that collecting additional information on suspicious activities that do not meet the level of fraud that can be referred to OIG would be inappropriate because VA lacks investigative authority. As GAO noted in its report, not all suspicious activity or complaints rise to the level of fraud. Collecting additional information could improve VA's ability to understand threats to veterans and develop responses, such as outreach, and could build on VA efforts already underway with its Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Incident Team.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VA reports that it plans to include warnings on its pension applications to clarify which fees attorneys and others may charge veterans for representing them when applying for pension benefits. According to VA, information collection requests were published in the Federal Register in June 2020, and VA expects its application forms to be revised by the end of calendar year 2020. GAO will close this recommendation once VA's applications are revised.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020 VA reported that it is in the process of updating its application forms to require claimants to submit documentation, such as a voided check or deposit slip, when applying for pension benefits. GAO will close this recommendation once changes to these applications are complete.
GAO-19-628, Sep 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-543, Sep 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The department did not provide comments on our report or recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, Education stated that we did not sufficiently account for the limitations on its legal authority to carry out environmental justice activities. Education also stated that it does not believe this is the most appropriate course of action for the department or an efficient use of resources. We believe that Education can develop a strategic plan within its existing authorities. We will continue to review the department's actions to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the department neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2020, the department agreed to review its environmental justice strategy and to revise it if needed. It also stated that as part of that review, it will consider any guidance issued by the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG) concerning what agencies should include in environmental justice strategic plans. The department stated that it anticipated receiving such guidance by the end of 2020. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, the department stated that its role is tangential to achieving environmental justice goals, but it is committed to integrating environmental justice into its responsibilities to protect workers. It stated that it has no plans at this time to update its environmental strategic plan. We agree that Labor should develop an environmental plan that contains goals consistent with its mission and authorities. We will continue to review its actions to implement our recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, the agency agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2020, the department committed to updating its environmental justice strategic plan. It said that it will update its strategic plan pending the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) guidance on what agencies should include in their plans. It also set a goal of completing the update within 6 months of EPA's issuance of guidance. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, USDA agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The department did not provide comments on our report or recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with this recommendation. First, DOD stated that it had achieved the intent of Executive Order 12898 by including environmental justice considerations in its decision-making processes, primarily by using the environmental review process. Second, the department stated that it is bound by its mission with limited opportunities to change where the department operates. DOD stated that these reasons make it a significant challenge for the department to meet our recommendation and therefore does not see a tangible benefit to additional reporting. As we stated in our report, DOD would be reporting on goals that it set within its mission and authorities. We will continue to review DOD's actions to carry out this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, Education stated that we did not sufficiently account for the limitations on its legal authority to carry out environmental justice activities. Education also stated that it does not believe this recommendation is the most appropriate course of action for the department or an efficient use of resources. We believe that Education can develop a strategic plan within its existing authorities, and then it should report its progress on these activities annually. We will continue to review the department's actions to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, Department of Energy officials stated that they had issued progress reports for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and would issue progress reports annually after this point. We will review the department's reports in upcoming years to determine that it has carried out this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the department agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, the department agreed with our recommendation. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, the department stated that its role is tangential to achieving environmental justice goals and therefore it has no real chance to update its progress reports. We agree that Labor should develop an environmental strategic plan containing goals consistent with its mission and authorities. It can develop progress reports annually related to these goals. We will continue to review its actions to implement our recommendation and update this information.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the department stated that it partially agreed with this recommendation. It stated that it would update its progress reports as needed. As we stated in our report, leading practices for performance management indicate that annual performance reporting helps an agency to keep track of and achieve its goals. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2020, the department committed to issuing annual progress reports. The department also stated that it will use EPA or Interagency Working Group (IWG) guidance on methods agencies could use to assess progress towards their environmental justice goals. It stated that it would begin issuing progress reports following issuance of such guidance and per reporting schedule established by the Environmental Justice IWG. We will continue to review the department's actions and update this information.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions and update this information.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA agreed with this recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA disagreed with this recommendation, but also stated that it would lead efforts to update the working group's fiscal year 2016-2018 Framework for Collaboration to include guidance for strategic plans, tracking progress toward goals, and defining alignment with the executive order. We believe that if the agency carries out these actions, it will meet the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, EPA disagreed with this recommendation and stated that it should be combined with the recommendation to update the Environmental Justice working group's strategic documents. We believe the agency misunderstood the recommendation. As we stated in the report, we believe that the MOU needs to be updated to address the matter of participation by the members who signed it but do not participate. We will continue to review the agency's actions to update its progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-19-600, Sep 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6881
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they would determine a reasonable time frame for completing the report and will coordinate with appropriate officials regarding a potential legislative proposal to Congress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are taking steps to modify their Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System database to improve the collection of relevant data.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are developing a plan in coordination with USAID to fill existing vacancies, and are recruiting State and USAID employees to serve on details to fill existing staffing gaps.
GAO-19-466, Jul 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3149
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB disagreed with the recommendation and suggested it would be more effective to remind agencies that, in addition to the guidelines, they should follow all other relevant OMB guidance affecting monitoring and evaluation. OMB asserted that this guidance contains provisions relevant to our leading practices not included in the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines. However, we believe it is important for OMB to incorporate this other guidance into the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, if only by reference, to emphasize the importance of these practices in the context of monitoring and evaluation of foreign assistance. As of April 28, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not implemented this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor this issue.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and noted that impact evaluations require a significant resource investment beyond what would be appropriate for more programs. However, DOD is in the process of updating its evaluation guidelines to allow for, but not require, impact evaluations in appropriate cases at all levels of evaluation activities.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State agreed with the intent of the recommendation (see appendix V for written comments). State explained that impact evaluations are often not feasible in the context of assistance provided under PEPFAR and described its alternative approach to evaluating new initiatives. State indicated it would update appropriate PEPFAR policies to clarify when agencies should conduct impact and/or performance evaluations. These clarifications will reflect how State evaluates PEPFAR programs in practice in accordance with OMB guidance and legislation, according to State.
GAO-19-572, Jul 25, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.
GAO-19-459, Jul 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: In a January 2020 update, CFPB reemphasized statements made in its comment letter, including its expectation for CRAs to fully comply with applicable federal consumer financial laws and the role of case law in providing guidance to CRAs. CFPB additionally noted that its publicly available examination procedures discuss factors that CFPB will consider in evaluating compliance with the reasonableness standard under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). CFPB stated that since publication of the report, it has taken actions to convey expectations to CRAs, including holding a joint workshop with FTC in December 2019 on consumer reporting accuracy and publishing a Supervisory Highlights special edition focused on consumer reporting. More direct communication of CFPB's expectations can provide CRAs with clearer information on what actions might constitute a FCRA violation and how CRAs should comply with the reasonableness standard. We maintain that providing additional information to CRAs about its expectations for key FCRA requirements could help CFPB to promote consistency and transparency in its supervisory approach and that the recommendation should be addressed.
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: In a January 2020 update, CFPB restated the requirements for a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and noted that court cases have articulated what qualifies as a reasonable investigation. CFPB also noted that a 2011 FTC report summarizes how the courts and FTC have interpreted these obligations, and that CFPB issued a bulletin on reasonable investigations in September 2013. CFPB stated that it has and will continue to communicate its expectations to CRAs regarding applicable provisions of FCRA. We maintain that providing additional information to CRAs about its expectations for key FCRA requirements could help CFPB to promote consistency and transparency in its supervisory approach and that the recommendation should be addressed.
GAO-19-500, Jul 2, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In September 2019, GSA told us that it will set up a cross functional team with officials from the Public Building Service offices of Acquisitions and Design and Construction, and the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy, to develop a strategic plan to address the recommendation. In July 2020, GSA told us that the final action step for this recommendation was due to be completed on August 31, 2020. We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation as we receive more information on steps taken.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In July 2020, DOD officials told us that it has developed a corrective action plan to address the recommendation, which is estimated to be completed at the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor progress once we receive the corrective action plan.
GAO-19-551R, Jun 18, 2019
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation, but in its initial comments said that it was too late to send such a reminder for the 2017-18 data collection because 94 percent of districts had already submitted their data. Education agreed to feature the instructions more prominently on the website and consider other changes, such as targeted communications and changes in the placement of the instructions for the 2019-20 collection. However, in August 2019 Education emailed districts that had reported zero incidents for the 2017-18 school year and told them to review their data and submit corrections if necessary. It also sent separate emails to all districts that clarified and reminded districts when to report zero and when to leave cells blank. For the next CRDC survey, covering the 2019-20 school year, Education said that it was proposing changes to the survey, including featuring instructions and technical assistance more prominently on the online form. We will continue to monitor Education's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation. Education stated that it had taken steps to more closely scrutinize action plans for the 2017-18 data collection, including directly communicating with districts about their action plans and scheduling calls with any district that requests similar or repetitious action plans over the course of two or more collections. In December 2019, Education stated that for future collections, it would contact each district with an approved action plan before the start of each new collection and reconfirm that the district will take the needed steps to collect and report the data. Moreover, Education is studying ways to augment the online submission system to send automated reminders regarding data elements covered by action plans. We will continue to monitor Education's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education initially disagreed with this recommendation, but subsequently said that for the 2015-16 data collection, it would amend the data notes to ensure the public is aware of potential changes by prominently displaying the data notes and clearly delineating the data flaws on its website. We will continue to monitor Education's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-19-346, May 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, BLM reported it had awarded a contract to develop a new data system that will allow for centralized data collection on acquisition method and ownership interest. In addition, the agency issued updated guidance and procedures related to data entry to help ensure complete and accurate recording, which will improve BLM's ability to track acquisition method and interest acquired in the interim.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, BLM reported it was planning to develop specific guidance to ensure land acquisition data is entered correctly into its new data system.
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of May 2020, the Bureau's program risk registers included a clear indication of the status of mitigation plans; however, the Bureau's portfolio risk register did not, without which there was not a clear indication of which portfolio risk mitigation plans had been approved by management. As of August 2020, the Bureau's portfolio risk register also included a clear indication of mitigation plan status. At that time, we reviewed the Bureau's program and portfolio risk registers to determine whether the Bureau had developed and obtained management approval of mitigation and contingency plans for all risks that required them. We found six risks that met the Bureau's requirements for a contingency plan but did not have an approved contingency plan in place. We notified the Bureau and asked them to ensure that approved mitigation and contingency plans were in place for all risks that required them. We will continue to monitor the Bureau's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the Bureau updated its decennial risk management plan and, in doing so, implemented this recommendation for six of the seven key attributes we identified. The missing attribute was monitoring plans: a description in each mitigation and contingency plan of how the agency will monitor the risk response-with performance measures and milestones, where appropriate-to help track whether the plan is working as intended. According to Bureau officials, rather than requiring this attribute, they instead noted it as a lesson learned for the 2030 Census and documented it in their knowledge management tool. In August 2020, we requested documentation of these actions. Once received, we will assess whether these actions suffice to close the recommendation.
GAO-19-344, May 30, 2019
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity and the ability to aggregate the data, in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these categories in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Air Force officials said that the Air Force was working to implement uniform standards for collection of military justice data and records in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these standards in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity in their new case management system which was currently under development, and may implement changes to interface with Navy investigations and personnel databases. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would implement modifications to the Coast Guard's military justice database to support the tracking of race, ethnicity and gender information as part of a longer term initiative to capture all of the data elements required by the uniform standard adopted by the Department of Defense. They estimated this would be completed in September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. That change was made before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting relevant research to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was developing the capability to collect data of race, ethnicity, gender, offense and punishment imposed for nonjudicial punishments in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to complete this action in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was refining its processes to standardize the documentation and reporting requirements of all nonjudicial punishment cases. They further stated that the Marine Corps currently has the ability to capture this information, but in two different systems that could be extracted and assimilated with any system as required. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would consider the feasibility of collecting and maintain complete information for all nonjudicial punishments cases through a military justice and personnel work group. The estimated completion date for this action was not yet determined.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. We made that change before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting a research project to delve into the differences in military justice data to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, identify potential disparity indicators, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.
GAO-19-299, Apr 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In an October 2019 written response to the recommendation contained in GAO-19-299, OMB acknowledged the importance of collecting stakeholder input and described some steps that it has taken to do so in the past. The letter also stated OMB's intention to engage key stakeholders moving forward but was not specific regarding steps it planned to take related to the potential expansion of the Central Reporting Portal. GAO will continue to monitor this issue including what specific actions, if any, OMB takes in response to this recommendation.
GAO-19-264, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In the 180-day letter GAO received on July 15, 2019, DOT concurred with this recommendation. DOT also noted that NHTSA will recommend a crash underride data element for inclusion in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 6th Edition, tentatively scheduled for issuance in the summer of 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In the 180-day letter GAO received on July 15, 2019, DOT concurred with this recommendation. DOT also noted that NHTSA--as well as FMCSA--will develop informational materials for state and local police departments that educate end users, such as police officers, on how to identify and record underride crashes. DOT plans to post the training materials on NHTSA's and FMCSA's public websites by the fall of 2021.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In the 180-day letter GAO received on July 15, 2019, DOT concurred with this recommendation. DOT noted that FMCSA initiated a rulemaking to include rear impact guards on the list of items that must be examined as part of the required annual inspection of commercial motor vehicles. DOT added that the rulemaking would ensure that vehicles with missing or damaged rear guards would not satisfy the annual inspection criteria. FMCSA expects to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In the 180-day letter GAO received on July 15, 2019, DOT concurred with this recommendation. DOT noted that NHTSA is conducting a review of police accident reports of light vehicle crashes into the side of trailers in order to (1) estimate the number of fatalities from side underride crashes and (2) understand the effectiveness of side underride guards in preventing and mitigating the severity of side underride crashes. NHTSA then plans to conduct an analysis of the impacts of requiring side underride guards on trucks and trailers. NHTSA plans to complete these analyses by September 2020.
GAO-19-240, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its written response, which is included in our report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that this recommendation is no longer applicable due to the establishment of the U.S. Space Force on December 20, 2019. All space acquisition programs previously in the Air Force were transferred to the Space Force upon stand up and funding followed with the FY21 President's Budget submission. DOD also states in the CAP that the transfer of the other military services' and defense agencies' space acquisition programs and funding to the Space Force is currently in process. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command, we will consider whether the recommendation should be closed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has not taken action to implement this recommendation. As discussed in our report, DOD did not concur with this recommendation. DOD stated that the manner in which personnel data are captured in its human resource and development systems makes it difficult to identify, collect, and maintain data on the military and civilian personnel working on space acquisition programs. Further, DOD raised concerns over contractual limitations on collecting and maintaining data on contractor and FFRDC personnel supporting space acquisitions. We continue to believe that collecting and maintaining more robust data on the space acquisition workforce will support DOD's planning efforts for establishing new space organizations and better inform Congress. In our report, we point out that DOD could make minor modifications to its personnel data system to facilitate identifying and routinely tracking accurate information on the military and civilian segments of the space acquisition workforce. Further, collecting information on the general levels of contractor and FFRDC effort supporting space acquisition activities and the resources spent to obtain this assistance, could be useful in helping DOD determine the right number and mix of military and civilian personnel needed in the new space organizations. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that it has determined that due to the fluidity of support provided by individual workforce members to specific programs, it is not feasible to collect data attributing individual support to specific space acquisition programs. In the CAP, DOD also states that since the U.S. Space Force has been established, DOD has a limited ability to produce data on the organic space acquisition workforce comprised of former USAF units, and DOD will determine the best format and means of reporting this data. DOD further states that once the space acquisition programs from other military services and Defense Agencies are transferred to the Space Force, it will need to determine how best to integrate acquisition workforce data from the newly assigned agencies and units. Once that is determined, DOD will attempt to provide an aggregate report of available space acquisition workforce data to the Congress. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command and are included under its reporting, we will consider whether to close the recommendation.
GAO-19-257, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
including 1 priority recommendation
BLS could expand existing worker or firm surveys to ask respondents whether advanced technologies have resulted in worker displacements, work hour reductions, or substantial adjustments to work tasks.
BLS could expand its employment projections work to regularly identify occupations projected to change over time due to advanced technologies.
ETA could expand the O*NET data system to identify changes to skills, tasks, and tools associated with occupations, as the information is updated on its rotational basis, and consider how this could be used to track the spread of advanced technologies.
(Recommendation 1)
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. DOL stated that it will continue coordinating with the Census Bureau on research activities in this area, and plans to identify and recommend data collection options to fill gaps in existing information about how the workplace is affected by new technologies, automation, and AI. In February 2020, DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued a public report evaluating data gaps and providing recommendations for data collection options. In June 2020, DOL reported that BLS plans to host a seminar to discuss the report findings and potential pilot data collection options. DOL also plans to release its first annual employment projections data in September 2020 (previously released every 2 years). In addition, DOL reported that the Employment and Training Administration has undertaken three research efforts, which are still underway, to test ways to analyze O*NET data elements for their potential to track changes in occupations over time and to flag areas for further study on the workforce effects of automation. This recommendation will be implemented when DOL completes more of its activities.
GAO-19-221, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.
GAO-19-101, Jan 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA provided a project plan for tasks to be completed for common financial reporting through 2021. However, NNSA has not developed requirements that define specific or detailed requirements for successful implementation of common financial reporting, such as the types of information that program managers need.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA established a detailed project schedule for the common financial reporting effort through fiscal year 2021. However, NNSA should communicate this detailed project schedule for the effort to Congress on an annual basis.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NNSA developed a risk management plan for common financial reporting which established a framework for identifying and managing risks. GAO will continue to monitor NNSA's efforts to implement the plan, including how NNSA identifies and documents risks and mitigates risk exposure using its management plan.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, NNSA has continued to engage on a regular basis with its M&O contractors. However, similar efforts have not continued with stakeholders of the program offices.
GAO-19-52, Jan 15, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions Congress has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information
GAO-19-140, Dec 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated having updated the Census Field Supervisor hiring assessment to include questions on supervisory experience, in line with draft documentation provided near the end of our engagement. The Bureau also indicated that, by June 2019, it would communicate as part of supervisor training increased supervisory responsibilities and the need to more actively work with enumerators in answering casework questions. In August 2020, the Bureau informed us that the Bureau would not be altering the information flows for 2020 operations to ensure that census field supervisors receive the same guidance and procedural updates that managers within the area census office receive. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau's planned or other actions will also need to demonstrate how the census field supervisors will have the information they need to carry out their responsibilities to provide supervisory support to enumerators.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it plans, by June 2019, to give area census offices (ACOs) the ability to distribute training and informational updates to their local workforces through the Operational Control System. As of January 2020, we are reviewing updated Bureau training documentation on planned mid-operation procedural changes. In April 2020, the Bureau informed us that ACOs would not be empowered during 2020 operations to deliver to their workforces standardized, mid-operation guidance that would be targeted to specific issues being observed locally in the field. Officials noted that they would revisit this issue after 2020 operations have concluded. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau will need to demonstrate the ability of ACOs to identify procedural or other implementation issues encountered locally and develop some form of actionable guidance disseminated systematically to its workforce in near-real time.
GAO-19-77, Dec 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7141
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: USAID concurred with GAO's recommendation and has begun to take corrective action in response. In a March 11, 2019 letter to congressional committees, USAID noted its commitment to address GAO's recommendation through implementing additional controls for the agency's counter-trafficking in persons projects. Specifically, USAID commented that it was implementing data systems and taking additional steps intended to strengthen data management, improve record-keeping, increase data quality, and build capacity of local partners, with a target completion date of April 2020. As of January 2020, USAID officials noted that the agency has piloted its information management system, the Development Information Solution (DIS), in 7 USAID missions and is considering a strategy to deploy the DIS agency-wide by the end of 2021. According to USAID officials and documents, work has been completed to build DIS features that will help to improve the consistency and completeness of performance information, such as the ability to create and centrally manage customized indicators within DIS as well as centrally track and manage project activities, targets, and results. USAID has also updated its performance monitoring policy to require the completion of Performance Management Plans, within 3 months of completion of the mission's Country Development Cooperation Strategy, instead of the previously required 6 months. In addition, according to USAID officials and documents GAO reviewed, USAID and the Department of State's (State) Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources have developed additional administrative reports and processes that encourage increased ownership and review of data in the FACTSinfo NextGen system, the system of record for performance information related to the expenditure of foreign assistance funds. According to USAID officials and documents GAO reviewed, in order to improve quality control for this data, USAID and State will conduct a high level administrative review of the performance reporting process, including of the participation of key stakeholders in this process, beginning in March 2020. Once USAID provides additional information to GAO, including information on steps to more fully deploy the DIS and implement changes resulting from its review of the PPR process under its new grants management data system, GAO will determine whether USAID has established additional controls to improve the consistency and completeness of performance information.
GAO-19-67, Nov 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-56, Nov 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation and indicated they are taking steps towards closing it. Specifically, FNS officials said they plan to take the following actions to disseminate strategies on increasing participation among SNAP recipients referred to the SNAP E&T program: 1) update the SNAP E&T Best Practices Study to include strategies on increasing participation by December 2021; 2) publish results from Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Requirements and Work Effort Under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that include information regarding which outreach, referral, and enrollment processes are most effective by 2021; and 3) provide technical assistance through SNAP to Skills with new attention on increasing SNAP E&T participation and engagement among eligible SNAP participants. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to disseminate strategies through these mechanisms with a particular focus on ensuring these strategies reach both state officials and service providers.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. They noted that they have been providing continued technical assistance to states to improve data quality and in October 2018 made updates to the SNAP E&T data report. FNS plans or has additional changes pending to the SNAP E&T data report and SNAP Quality Control guidance that it plans to use to collect improved SNAP E&T data in fiscal year 2021. In addition, FNS plans to leverage results from data and technical assistance grants upon their completion in September 2020 to disseminate best practices to help states improve outcome reporting data. We are encouraged by FNS's efforts in these areas and will evaluate the results of these actions as we continue to monitor the agency's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation. FNS officials noted that with the submission of January 2019 outcome reporting measures, the agency has a complete year of data which FNS will use to establish a baseline for each State's SNAP E&T program. However, FNS has not yet articulated how the data will be used to assess effectiveness of the programs, or provided examples of how FNS has used the data to provide feedback on the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to communicate to the states how the outcome data can be used to assess program effectiveness.
Phone: (202)512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, GSA indicated it will address this recommendation by updating and enhancing the asbestos module in IRIS to address the issues identified in our report. GSA intends to allocate available funding and complete the changes to IRIS by the end of fiscal year 2019. We will continue to follow-up with GSA about the status of this recommendation.
GAO-19-73, Nov 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
including 6 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Army has required monitoring of its processes used for recording all real property information. Specifically, the Army developed a 5-year plan to address the recommendations to improve data quality and accountability in conjunction with the ongoing DOD financial statement audit. The plan reportedly requires measuring results through directed physical inspections and record updates, using a single, standardized Accountable Property System of Record (APSR) for all assets. DOD officials also told us that the Army developed an automated validation and second-person verification to comply with the requirements and business rules of the DOD Real Property Information Model (RPIM), and that it continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Army levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements have been established. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials stated that the Navy required monitoring of its processes used for recording real property information. Specifically, the Navy established a requirement for a 100% inventory check to ensure existence and completeness of its real property information. As part of DOD larger effort to improve its financial management through the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) guidance, DOD officials also told us that the Navy plans to implement the existence and completeness results provided by an independent Public Accounting Firm. Further, it will continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Navy levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had been put in place. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Air Force has required monitoring of its processes for recording all required real property information. For example, the Air Force plans to establish a Data Quality Program (DQP) within the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Information Technology Functional Management Office to incorporate requirements for improving accuracy of its asset information in its Accountable Property System of Record (APSR). The Air Force also plans to revise its instruction AFI 32-9005 to define responsibility for the accuracy of data at the lowest level. Further, it plans to require use of OSD's validation and verification tool to identify and correct inaccuracies when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Air Force levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had yet been put in place. We await documentation of these requirements and will review them, once received, to assess the extent to which they meet the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to define and document which data elements within its Real Property Assets Database (RPAD) submissions are most significant for decision-making. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they will conduct a review of all data elements in its Real Property Assets Database, including compiling list of all data elements actively being used by data consumers. DOD also plans to divide required data elements into blocks to begin strenuous monitoring for accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to coordinate on corrective action plans to remediate discrepancies in significant data elements in its real property data system that are identified by OSD's verification and validation tool. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to establish a senior leader Functional Governance Board to monitor accuracy compliance. DOD also plans to establish quarterly progress reports to be posted on the Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) application for constant monitoring by all users. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2022. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to collaborate with the military services on separate service strategies that reflect each military service's operating environment. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to stabilize their Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) platform to improve data inventory by ensuring successful network connectivity for all military service users. DOD will update policy guidance to formalize the use of the DAIS platform for inventory submission by the military services. DOD also will develop and formalize in policy benchmarks and metrics to monitor data accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
GAO-19-57, Nov 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, OMB has developed guidance to help federal agencies implement the capital planning requirements described in OMB's November 6, 2019 Memorandum 20-3, "Implementation of Agency-wide Real Property Capital Planning." According to OMB officials, this guidance was distributed to agencies in July 2020. Agency plans were due to OMB by August 15,2020. This recommendation remains open pending further information from OMB on the status and contents of these plans.
GAO-19-10, Oct 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with our recommendation, noting that CMS would provide states with additional information on how to fulfill the requirement for independent encounter data audits. HHS also noted in January 2019 that CMS was developing voluntary guidance that will include information on best practices for validating encounter data. To implement this recommendation, the Administrator of CMS should inform states of the required audit scope and methodology as well as the resulting report. As of January 2020, HHS officials have not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with our recommendation, noting that CMS would provide states further information on the required content of the annual assessment. In January 2019, HHS noted that CMS continues to develop guidance to states on how to fulfill the annual assessment requirement. As of January 2020, HHS officials have not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation and noted steps it has already taken to remind states of their obligation to submit timely, quality encounter data, and prioritize data quality. In January 2019, HHS identified a possible step CMS could take in the event it finds deficiencies in states' encounter data reporting that cannot be resolved through informal monitoring and discussions with state Medicaid agencies. In particular, HHS noted that CMS would issue guidance on the parameters by which the agency would impose financial penalties on states for noncompliant encounter data submissions, if necessary. In February 2020, CMS officials told us that they continue to monitor state encounter data submissions and would issue guidance to states if they identify deficiencies in the data that cannot be resolved through informal monitoring and disccussions with state Medicaid agencies. To implement this recommendation, the Administrator of CMS should provide states with this information. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-19-116, Oct 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-18-671, Sep 28, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and stated that it has already taken steps to improve compliance with secondary authorization request approval timeframes.by identifying challenges, agreeing on improvement actions, and providing training. According to VA, its new Health Share Referral Manager system, which VA expects will be fully implemented across all medical facilities by December 2019, will automate secondary authorization request reporting and tracking. According to VA, it will utilize this new system to ensure compliance with secondary authorization request approval time frames.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and stated that it currently does not have the ability to monitor and assess the performance of customer service operations under the Choice Program contracts. VA has included additional requirements for customer service in the Veterans Community Care Network request for proposals and plans to monitor compliance with these requirements under the Veterans Community Care Program. VA expects to implement this recommendation by December 2019.
GAO-18-491, Sep 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff provided us with oral comments stating that the agency partially concurred with our recommendations. For our second recommendation, OMB agreed that user feedback data regarding the Career Roadmap Builder and Grants Training 101 is useful. However, OMB stated that while it will continue to collect data on the number of users, it believes that federal agencies should be responsible for collecting specific, detailed user data if they are using those resources. We continue to believe that OMB and CFOC would benefit from collecting specific, detailed user data on these tools, which they devoted time and multiple resources to developing. Collecting detailed data metrics that go beyond the number of users can help OMB and CFOC to better evaluate the effectiveness of these grants training tools. Additionally, OMB stated the agency is committed to working with CFOC to review the Grants Training 101 module to determine how useful it is and if any improvements or adjustments are needed. In May 2019, OMB staff said that no action had been taken to date in response to this recommendation. In January 2020, OMB responded in writing to this recommendation stating that it was continuing to collect data on usage for both training tools on the CFO.gov site. OMB specified, however, that the usage data was for the number of visitors on the two sites and on users by agency. OMB went on to say that each agency is responsible for the professional development of its own workforce, and that Federal agencies can, at their discretion, collect user data if the Roadmap and Grant Training 101 are part of their official training program. In addition, OMB stated it had made the Grants Training 101 available publicly for federal and non-federal personnel on CFO.Gov, and that collecting specific user data is not considered by them to be beneficial to demonstrate the usefulness of the materials. Based on this response, we will continue to inquire as to the availability and use of metrics and effectiveness measures for the Career Roadmap and the Grants Training 101 modules.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our findings and recommendation. In its comment letter, HHS stated that its Office of Grants Policy, Oversight, and Evaluation, within the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Division of Grants, in conjunction with the HHS ReInvent Grants Initiative would be developing and implementing a department-wide financial assistance training and certification program to improve the functional effectiveness of the financial assistance management workforce in the areas of internal controls and risk mitigation. The program is designed to support the professional development of the HHS grants management workforce through both instructor-led and online courses. HHS' ReInvent Grants Management (RGM) staff and GAO held a conference call on November 30th, 2018 to discuss how RGM intended to address the recommendation in GAO-18-491 by developing a generalized framework for the Grants Management Training and Certification (GMTC) program for HHS. An HHS official reported that at its December 2019 quarterly meeting, the HHS Division of Workforce Development (DWD) reported they had in the past quarter: briefed the HHS Executive Committee on Grants Administration Policy (ECGAP) on the DWD mission and goals for training the grants workforce; developed briefing documents and presentations based on a RGM developed framework to develop competencies and outline curriculum of the GMTC program; continued to review and refine the program framework to incorporate DWD mission and goals; drafted the initial policy to further inform the structure and procedures of the GMTC program (e.g. certification levels, required coursework, career development requirements), which should be issued by HHS Office of Grants within Federal Fiscal Year 2020; and collaborated with the HHS Grants Closeout Business Process Reengineering Team to discuss current grants closeout status and how DWD can support grant staff and grant recipient closeout training efforts. Given the ongoing nature of HHS efforts, GAO will continue to monitor progress on a quarterly basis.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: FCC officials said they plan to implement by September 2021. They believe the rec is addressed by the new Digital Opportunity Data Collection (DODC) program and associated platform. FCC agreed that while the DODC is a general information improvement effort, it will also cover tribal lands and address this rec.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: FCC believes the Digital Opportunity Data Collection program will satisfy this recommendation in part by the data verification process, which has a crowd-sourced component. The data validation is not specific to tribal input, but FCC believes the process would help verify all data as accurate and thus satisfy our recommendation.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: On October 24, 2018, FCC announced the appointment of 19 Tribal members and eight FCC members to the FCC's renewed Native Nations Communications Task Force. The Task Force, according to FCC's website, "will help the Commission fulfill its commitment to increase access to broadband and other communications infrastructure deployment and services on Tribal lands." According to FCC officials, FCC has tasked the Native Nations Communications Task Force with helping evaluate the effectiveness of the tribal engagement obligation, and expects the task force to provide FCC with its findings and recommendations by Spring 2020. FCC has yet to provide documentation to GAO to satisfy this recommendation.
GAO-18-618, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-18-618, published in September 2018. State noted that it intends to amend templates for relevant implementing documents to address human rights as appropriate. In February 2020, State officials indicated that they had expressly included requirements for human rights components in new police training agreements established since we made our recommendation, and in May 2020 provided some examples of those requirements. We continue to work with State to learn about internal control mechanisms they may have established to help ensure they continue to include human rights content in police training as appropriate.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-18-618, published in September 2018. State commented that, partly in response to our report, it was developing specific indicators related to INL-funded police training. In February 2020, State officials indicated that contractors hired to work on developing measures to track the impact of INL efforts would be developing a database to store results, including the number of police trained. In addition, State told us that INL's implementing partner working in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras also keeps a list of individuals who attend training. In May 2020, officials noted an effort to pilot the implementation of improved data collection was underway in Honduras. We continue working with State officials as they make progress developing and implementing their new process to collect and maintain police training data. As we confirm actions taken by State in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-137, Jul 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-5045
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The VA Office of the Inspector General updated VA Directive 0701 to require a written or electronic signature from the person preparing the response that the specific requirements of the directive were met. The updated version of the directive was submitted to the Department, the concurrence was signed on November 16, 2018. As of January 2019, the VA OIG was working with the VA to finalize and publish the directive. On February 15, 2019, the VA OIG contacted GAO with revised language for VA Directive 0701. The language clarified the requirement to include a signature and attestation by the person preparing the response. As of June 2020, the VA OIG is in the process of working with the VA administration to finalize and publish the directive. In September 2020, GAO requested an update from the VA OIG on the status of publishing the directive.
GAO-18-381, Jul 11, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2660
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, USDA provided an update on efforts to review its Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) policies and procedures. To ensure that its PRA process is operating effectively, USDA reviewed and updated its internal guidance on preparing information collection request supporting statements, including sections regarding the calculation of respondent burden hour and cost estimates. This updated guidance encourages consultation with potential respondents to help develop these burden estimates. A new PRA consultation checklist directs agency officials to seek input from individuals outside of USDA regarding the agency's burden estimates for an information collection request, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate calculations. The updated guidance specifies that fringe benefits, such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement contributions, should be included in the wage rates used for respondent burden cost estimates. It also clarifies when roundtrip travel time and costs should be included in burden estimates. According to USDA officials, the agency meets with PRA Coordinators to ensure compliance with the updated guidance. These are positive steps toward improving USDA's burden calculation process. However, USDA has not yet provided evidence of a review or revision of its information collection request review process. A review or revision of this process could help USDA better identify errors in burden estimate calculations prior to the final information collection request being sent to OMB and released to the public.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, HHS provided a statement of actions it had taken to address this recommendation. HHS stated that it had added reporting tools to its Common Data Element Repository (CDER) Library that could help improve tracking of information related to HHS's Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated that it had launched daily emails to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) staff to inform them of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notices of Action related to Information Collection Requests. Additionally, HHS released an information collection burden calculator tool in the CDER Library to give PRA staff the ability to create burden tables for consistent use across multiple platforms for a single Information Collection Request. According to HHS officials, this tool incorporates both wages and employee benefits in the burden calculations. As of August 2019, HHS's burden calculator tool has been included as a resource on PRA.Digital.gov, a new OMB website that serves as a PRA knowledge base for federal staff. While these are important steps, we are awaiting additional details on how these changes have affected HHS's PRA review process. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress toward addressing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, HHS stated that it continues to leverage consultation mechanisms for input on the burdens imposed by information collections. According to the agency, it plans to increase the use of the eRulemaking program's Federal Docket Management System for all information collections, including non-rule Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated it plans to contact stakeholders to discuss potential information collections and receive burden estimates. As of August 9, 2019, we have not received an update about HHS's actions or plans. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, no relevant legislation has been enacted. We will continue to monitor legislation to see if it addresses our matter for congressional consideration.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the departmental Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Officer has reviewed the Notice templates and checklist with DOT component PRA Officers during monthly PRA meetings and has applied additional scrutiny in the review process. DOT officials stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance that will include additional aids to support Notice development. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to IRS, agency officials met with representatives of external stakeholder organizations on the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) to seek input on the burden experience of their participants and the communities they represent. As a result of these discussions, the IRPAC has added the burden experience as defined by the PRA as a monthly agenda topic for the 2019 session. As of September 2019, IRS officials reported that the IRPAC has not yet met in 2019. Once we receive documentation confirming this action, we will update the status of the recommendation accordingly.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported that it continues to standardize the review process by developing a checklist that ensures all required elements are included in the Federal Register notice. Agency officials stated that the agency will complete the development and delivery of training for employees with responsibility for PRA compliance in fiscal year 2019. We will continue to monitor IRS's progress toward completing these actions.
GAO-18-439, Jun 21, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD officials stated that the Air Force plans to make changes to its upcoming business case analysis to break out control grade from field grade officers to better delineate the staffing challenges it faces as well as the targeted effect of aviation bonus offerings. Officials stated that this change is part of an ongoing study with RAND that should be completed in early summer 2020.
GAO-18-421, Jun 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-411, Jun 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with this recommendation. However, the Bureau has yet to provide information concerning the current status of this recommendation. We will update the recommendation's status when we receive such information.
GAO-18-417, May 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.
GAO-18-135, Apr 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported that a Commandant Instruction had been drafted, which will include a policy on the duties and requirements for recording TAP data. The Commandant Instruction is anticipated to be issued by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction is officially issued.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with our recommendation and reported that the Coast Guard, Department of Defense (DOD), and other partners collaborated to identify measurable and specific performance goals that are compliant with VOW requirements. In addition, the these goals will be measured using the DOD's TAP-IT Enterprise tracking system once it becomes fully functional to the Coast Guard by October 31, 2018. We will close this recommendation when DHS provides documentation of its measures and goals.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported that a Commandant Instruction has been drafted, which will identify the duties of personnel who administer TAP. The Commandant Instruction is anticipated to be issued by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction is officially issued.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported the Coast Guard expects to fully transition to DOD's TAP-IT Enterprise System by October 31, 2018, which is expected to facilitate tracking of servicemember attendance within all TAP components. The agency also stated that following the transition and release of the new Commandant Instruction, Commanding Officers will be able to monitor their compliance with TAP performance and requirements. Both these efforts are expected to be completed by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction has been issued and documentation is provided of the ability to track performance information by unit.
GAO-18-77, Feb 28, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Army concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, the Army reported that several steps have been taken, including creating a 6-year health professions officer retention bonus for critically short physician specialties; increased the number of Health Professions Scholarship Program scholarships to help decrease the overall physician shortfalls; and added a recruiting mission using Financial Assistance Program (FAP) scholarships to help decrease the physician shortfall in critical specialties. The FAP mission is to begin in fiscal year 2020. While the steps Army reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Navy concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials stated that several steps have been taken, including exploring policy changes that would assist in meeting requirements. According to Navy officials, a working group has been formed which will address recruitment and retention of all critical specialties and plan to issue an end product by June 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Air Force concurred with our recommendation. In October 2019, the Air Force reported that several steps have been taken; including developing a sustainable process for improved marketing of key specialties to students and increasing the number of Health Professions Scholarship Program scholarships. While the steps Air Force reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Navy concurred with this recommendation. In November 2018, the Navy changed its Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) to allow tracking of qualification data fields. As of October 2019, the Navy reported it is taking steps to update NSIPS to track the complete performance and progress of AFHPSP medical students. While the steps Navy reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In August 2018, the Air Force updated guidance to emphasize the requirement for accurate and complete reporting of qualification data of AFHPSP medical students. As of October 2019, the Air Force reported that it is partnering with the Army and Navy to secure a tri-service database to track students' performance across the continuum of learning. While the steps Air Force reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences concurred with our recommendation. In October 2019, the University reported that issues relevant to tracking its students continue to be researched and have offered to collaborate with the military departments. While the steps the University reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Navy concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, the Navy reported that the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) now contains qualification data of AFHPSP medical students and also has some performance data of these students as they compete their post graduate training. NPSIS is capable of being queried and this data, according to the Navy, can be used to evaluate its accession programs. While the steps Navy reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Air Force concurred with our recommendation. In October 2019, the Air Force reported it plans to annually track and analyze information regarding its AFHPSP medical students and it is in the process of performing its annual review. While the steps Air Force reported demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
GAO-18-207, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SBA agreed with the recommendation. As of January 2020, SBA officials said they plan to continue working with participating agencies to determine a feasible way to implement the Commercialization Benchmark. According to SBA officials, SBA is leading an interagency Commercialization Working Group with participating agency officials and has implemented a commercialization reporting tool on the SBIR.gov site. Agency officials participating in the interagency working group have identified challenges with a single model for the benchmark and are working to resolve the issues.
GAO-18-150, Jan 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that PIH was continuing its workforce planning efforts, including assessing the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to implement the MTW expansion.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they had drafted written protocols for assessing compliance with the five demonstration requirements that would be finalized by May 2019.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they were still determining the most cost effective way to track MTW demonstration funds being used for local, nontraditional activities.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that HUD planned to add fields for capturing data on households served through local, nontraditional activities to the next generation of PIC for expansion MTW agencies, which would be implemented in the summer of 2020. Officials said HUD is currently in the process of determining how the next generation of PIC will be rolled out for existing MTW agencies.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to monitor existing MTW agencies' Housing Choice Voucher reserves by revising their annual reporting requirements to require them to report their plans for and use of reserves.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that PIH would clarify the definition of rent reform for existing MTW agencies in a document responding to frequently asked questions on the annual reporting requirements and for expansion agencies in the operations notice that it was finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to provide a range of suggested options for defining self-sufficiency in a document responding to frequently asked questions about the annual reporting requirements for MTW agencies.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to make it clear which elements are required in impact analyses, annual reevaluations, and hardship policies in the operations notice HUD was finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program. Further, HUD officials stated that the 2016 Appropriations Act that extended the standard agreement for the existing 39 MTW agencies limits HUD's ability to revise its guidance for these agencies to make it clear which elements are required in impact analyses, annual reevaluations, and hardship policies and the information required for each element. However, they stated that guidance related to the hardship policy and annual reevaluations has been updated to include more specific parameters for what an agency must submit to HUD. As we stated in our report, this guidance is set forth outside the standard agreement, which HUD already has revised without changes to the standard agreement. Therefore, we continue to believe that HUD could revise its guidance for the existing agencies to clarify which elements are required for these documents and the information each element should include.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they had updated their most recent annual reporting requirements for MTW agencies to require a hardship policy for public housing time limits and that they were working on finalizing guidance to existing MTW agencies encouraging an impact analysis, annual reevaluation, and hardship policy for work-requirement and time-limit policies for public housing and voucher programs.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that the operations notice they were finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program would require an impact analysis, annual reevaluation, and hardship policy for work-requirement and time-limit policies new MTW agencies adopt for their public housing and voucher programs.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to develop separate analysis plans for existing and expansion MTW agencies due to differences in the types of performance information HUD can require them to report under their MTW agreements.
GAO-18-33, Dec 18, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2020, officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness stated that development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy was complete and going through DOD's internal review process. The officials stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of the assessment report will be complete before the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the status of this recommendation as more information becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy is complete and the strategy is going through DOD's internal review process. Additionally, a Defense Equal Opportunity Reform Group assessment report containing a review of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment was also submitted to the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The official's stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of both the new strategy and assessment report should be completed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation and will update its status when more information becomes available.
GAO-18-136, Dec 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3149
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Department of State concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of January 2020, State reported that its Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services and Bureau of Administration is expected to complete analysis in 2020 with an associated action plan to address the issues encountered by State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and other bureaus understanding the importance of timely, accurate, complete, and quality data being reported to Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation and USASpending.gov. State also provided GAO with an overview of its newly established processes in its accounting system to improve data reliability, including ensuring that current and future transactions would maintain coding integrity. State has taken a number of steps to identify and address factors that affect the reliability of its democracy assistance data, such as miscoded data. However, State needs to provide information on steps taken to identify and address other factors, in particular missing data, which affect the reliability of its democracy assistance data. When we confirm what further actions State has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Department of State concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. In January 2020, State reported taking actions to implement the recommendation and we have requested documentation of these actions. In March 2019, Department of State reported that democracy assistance data for all bureaus, including the Bureaus of European and Eurasian Affair (EUR) and South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), are being tracked and its quality is being improved through the Department's Foreign Assistance Data Review (FADR) process, an ongoing process chartered in September 2014 to understand and document the Department's challenges with capturing all foreign assistance activities from budget planning and allocation through obligation and disbursement in multiple State-owned budget, financial, and program management systems. State reported that through the FADR process, the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F) has been working with the Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services (CGFS), the Bureau of Administration (A), and bureaus that administer Foreign Assistance to better capture transaction data for all types of foreign assistance-including democracy, human rights, and governance data. State also reported that 13 U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Sections in EUR that receive assistance funding to carry out democracy programs and all 11 posts in SCA are recording their assistance funding awards in the centralized State Assistance Management System (SAMS), which is one of the Department's financial management systems that is used for reporting foreign assistance transactions to ForeignAssistance.gov.
GAO-18-16, Dec 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not concur with our recommendation that the Coast Guard assess the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether certain factors-such as vessel length and region of operation-affect these rates. DHS officials stated that the Coast Guard has limited resources and capabilities to conduct such assessments and noted that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies marine incidents to identify causal factors in fishing vessel casualties, which could more effectively determine casualty rates. The Coast Guard uses this information to update and develop commercial fishing vessel safety standards and policy, as appropriate. GAO agrees that NIOSH plays an important role in identifying commercial fishing fatalities and regional risk factors, but such assessments typically focus on fatalities in specific fisheries, and generally did not consider such factors as vessel length or whether the vessel has been classed. As of July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated the Coast Guard continues to work with other Federal partners on data collection strategies through the established work group to determine the best reliable data in order to establish credible rates of casualties, injuries, and fatalities in the commercial fishing vessel industry. This recommendation will remain open pending a decision by the working group on the appropriate agency to conduct these assessments.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation that the Coast Guard issue regulations or guidance to clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. As of November 2018, the Coast Guard made a presentation to the commercial fishing industry clarifying the alternative-to-class approach as it relates to commercial fishing vessels including discussion topics such as understanding the language of 46 USC 4503 and State Licensed Naval Architect and Marine Engineers' scope of responsibilities when incorporating standards equivalent to those prescribed by a classification society. As of June 2020, Coast Guard officials stated they have formalized work instruction guidance regarding implementation of the alternative-to-class approach. This guidance is expected to be released by the end of 2020.
GAO-18-131, Dec 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, FERC is in the process of taking steps to address this recommendation.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, FERC is in the process of taking steps to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-15, Oct 6, 2017
Phone: 2025127114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided information on actions taken to implement it. We will update its status when we receive additional information.
GAO-17-377, Sep 6, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: Officials have previously acknowledged that a public health situational awareness network capability is important for identifying, processing, and comprehending data in real-time and stated that such a capability requires coordination and participation from numerous federal entities, including numerous HHS's operating divisions. However, as of January 2020, GAO has not received any information demonstrating progress made to implement our recommendation. Further, HHS has not provided us with a plan of action describing how they would implement the recommendation. Until steps are taken to implement our recommendation, HHS may not make the progress needed to establish an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA in 2013 and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: Officials have previously acknowledged that a public health situational awareness network capability is important for identifying, processing, and comprehending data in real-time and stated that such a capability requires coordination and participation from numerous federal entities, including numerous HHS's operating divisions. However, as of February 2020 agency officials have not indicated whether or not they concur with the recommendation, nor have they taken any action or provided a plan of action describing how they would implement the recommendation. Until steps are taken to implement our recommendation, HHS may not make progress toward establishing an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA in 2013 and in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 .
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In HHS' Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund's fiscal year 2021 budget justification-which includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response-the agency stated it "concurred" with this recommendation. However, as of February 2020, GAO has not received any information demonstrating progress made to implement our recommendation. Until then, HHS may continue to lack the necessary progress needed in order to establish an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA. To address this recommendation, HHS needs to direct the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to conduct all IT management and oversight processes related to the establishment of the network in accordance with Enterprise Performance Life Cycle Framework guidance.
GAO-17-703, Aug 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Based on the evidence DSCA has provided to date, this recommendation remains open. In March and September 2019, DSCA provided responses, including a copy of the October 2018 Memorandum eliminating 13-27, which was the requirement to provide the first item or service within 180 days of signing the LOA. DSCA also indicated that it had established an initiative to identify milestones. In order to close this recommendation, DSCA needs to provide evidence that this initiative resulted in the identification and implementation of metrics and targets to measure the cycle time of FMS sales from LOA implementation to delivery, and the collection of the appropriate data necessary to use the metrics to manage performance. In the absence of such measures, DSCA's elimination of the 180-day requirement is not consistent with GAO's recommendation to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery and services to recipient countries. GAO is reviewing responses provided in late 2019 to see whether they satisfy the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019 DSCA indicated that it has not yet identified the most appropriate milestones to efficiently and effectively track FMS sales. In addition, pursuant to Recommendation #1, DSCA has eliminated the only performance metric for measuring the timeliness of the delivery of goods and services upon executing an LOA. This recommendation remains open until DSCA identifies the metrics, and collects and analyzes the data to measure performance, including the timeliness of the process. GAO is reviewing the responses provided in late 2019 to determine whether they satisfy the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, DSCA officials informed GAO that DSCA will include a workforce plan in a Human Capital Strategy Plan. In June 2019, GAO was informed that the Human Capital Strategy had been completed, and requested a copy. In September 2019, DSCA informed us that the workforce plan should be completed by December 2020. GAO may be able to close this recommendation after receiving and reviewing the Strategy if it includes the promised workforce plan.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, DSCA informed GAO that it is currently establishing workload models. In order to close Recommendation 4, DSCA should provide, or make available for review, the workload models for the Country Portfolio Director and Country Financial Director positions, as well as the workload models for Title 10 equipping and end-use monitoring positions. In September 2019, DSCA provided information on the status of the efforts to develop workload measures. DSCA should also provide an explanation of why DSCA has determined that these functions lend themselves to a workload model, while other functions do not. GAO is reviewing the response provided in late 2019 to determine whether DSCA has satisfied the recommendation.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The VA Enterprise Mail Management Program Office revised Directive and Handbook 6340 "Mail Management" to include agency-wide goals and performance measures for mail operations and provided GAO draft versions of both documents in March 2020 that are currently under administration review. According to VA officials, final publication of the revised Directive and Handbook 6340 is estimated to be completed between September and December 2020. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-637, Jul 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including what additional data from air ambulance providers and other sources should be collected by DOT to improve its understanding of the industry. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including the recommendations from this GAO report. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.
GAO-17-597, Jul 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said its Space Acquisition Review Board (SARB) continues to meet periodically and focuses on efficiently using the agency's resources to reduce its real estate footprint and proactively addressing organizational and operational changes. In addition, SSA said its goals, results, and future plans of its real estate strategy are documented in its annual Real Property Efficiency Plan. GAO reviewed SSA's Real Property Efficiency Plan for 2019-2023 (dated September 2018). This plan states that SSA is using two model field offices to test how emerging technologies and service delivery methods could result in reductions to field office space agency-wide. However, it does not include specific plans for adjusting its overall physical footprint in light of expanding remote service delivery. To close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has developed a long-term facility plan--possibly building on its model field office pilot--that links to its strategic goals for service delivery and includes a plan for adjusting its field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic variation in remote service delivery.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it published its consolidated and revised Space Allocation Standards and Space Computation Worksheets in June 2019. It said the revised standards include standardized offices, work stations, and employee personal storage space. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that the revised space allocation standards allow more flexibility for growth in demand and new service delivery methods, or at least that SSA considered incorporating such flexibility.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has identified the most common reasons for technician follow-up on the iClaims system, and based on these reasons has developed a list of potential future enhancements to iClaim. SSA said it prioritized the enhancements based on which would provide the most relief, but is still determining if enhancements can be made. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that SSA has in fact implemented changes to the iClaim system based on the data it collected on reasons for technician follow-up.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has developed performance goals for its SSA Express Icons: 15,000 new visitors annually and 50 new partner sites annually. It also said it continues to work on a dashboard for behavioral based management information data collection for the Icon project. This effort will allow the agency to collect better data regarding customer usage. For GAO to close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has implemented performance measures for its full range of alternative service delivery methods and is collecting related performance information.
GAO-17-650, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2018, the CBP liaison informed GAO that offices within CBP are collaborating on a plan to assess additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program. On June 13, 2018, the CBP liaison stated that CBP staff continue to work on additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program and noted, in particular, are analyzing data to: (1) identify the number of unmanifested containers and determine how/if they were mitigated before arrival; (2) determine the number of times C-TPAT companies were identified and given targeting benefits, but did not receive the same treatment based on manifest information; and (3) identify the number of times potential terrorism matches were made against an ISF entities vs. the number of times not matched using the same manifest data. In March 2019, the CBP liaison stated that the new estimated completed date for this recommendation is the end of 2019. This recommendation will remain open until CBP's planned actions are completed and meet the intent of GAO's recommendation. In late February 2020, CBP liaison staff informed GAO that they are continuing to work on this recommendation, which they expect to complete by March 31, 2020.
GAO-17-622, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, the Bureau had not yet begun its 2030 testing and evaluation planning. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-613, Jul 18, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had developed and documented misconduct policies and procedures for most employees, but not its entire workforce. Specifically, FEMA had not documented misconduct policies and procedures for Surge Capacity Force members, who may augment FEMA's workforce in the event of a catastrophic disaster. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document policies and procedures to address potential Surge Capacity Force misconduct. In September 2017, FEMA officials reported taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, FEMA distributed a memorandum to Federal Coordinating Officers and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators providing guidance on how and to whom to report allegations of misconduct by Surge Capacity Force members, coordination efforts regarding investigations, and how to address the member's duty status during the course of an investigation. FEMA stated that it will further address this recommendation by updating the FEMA Human Capital Plan for the Surge Capacity Force. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a comprehensive Human Capital Guide based on lessons learned during the 2017 disaster season, which will address the Surge Capacity Force. This recommendation will remain open until the Human Capital Guide is completed.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) policies and procedures for Reservist employees did not outline disciplinary options to address misconduct or address the appeals process available for Reservists. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document Reservist disciplinary options and appeals policies and procedures that are currently in practice at the agency. In September 2017, FEMA reported that the Office of Response and Recovery was drafting an addendum to the FEMA Reservist program manual. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a FEMA Reservist Performance Management Directive which will provide agency-wide guidance for Reservist management and discipline. FEMA expects the directive to be completed by November 2020. This recommendation will remain open until the directive is complete.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not regularly conduct trend analysis on misconduct cases, and that the quality of the data restricted the agency's ability to identify and address trends. As a result, we recommended that, once steps were taken to improve the quality of the data, FEMA should conduct routine reporting on employee misconduct trends. As of July 2020, FEMA's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) changed plans on which information system to use for reporting purposes due to cyber security concerns. According to FEMA officials, OPR will be using a DHS enterprise system and the system will be able to generate regular reporting. FEMA anticipates reporting functionality by October 2020. We will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to address the recommendation.
GAO-17-510, Jun 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, NOAA reported that it had awarded a contract to assess hydrographic surveying needs and had drafted a Memorandum of Agreement to improve coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey on data acquisition and management. NOAA also reported that it planned to identify surveying tasks that could be accomplished using the private sector, and would take steps to improve the funding transfer process so that it could take advantage of Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Transportation Safety Board funds available for certain types of private sector survey activities. NOAA officials stated these tasks would be completed and a final strategy on working with the private sector issued by December 30, 2020.
GAO-17-423, May 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, Interior reported that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) and Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) efforts to coordinate with tribes and the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC) to address this recommendation were progressing. Established by federal regulations, TTPCC is the committee comprised of 24 tribal representatives that provides input and makes recommendations to the BIA and FHWA. According to Interior, TTPCC has identified data elements--14 of 54 data fields--to be considered for removal from NTTFI, and BIA and FHWA have held discussions with tribes concerning a draft plan to remove these identified data elements from NTTFI. Interior reported that tribal groups have posed no objections to the plan and that they anticipate the plan being implemented later in the year. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, Interior reported that a group of tribal users organized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to review the NTTFI and the coding guide was progressing in its efforts to recommend updates to the coding guide. According to Interior, the group has made recommendations to the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC) on which data elements to remove from the NTTFI and for clarifying guidance in the coding guide, relevant to the data elements proposed to remain in the NTTFI. Interior anticipates that updates to the coding guide based on the group's recommendations will be completed in 2019. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Interior told us that, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it has held several meetings with tribal users to identify missing or erroneous data in the NTTFI. For example, the meeting participants identified that data which were formerly but are no longer used in formulas to allocate federal funding to tribes are likely outdated and not useful. Further, recognizing that approximately 70 percent of NTTFI data reflects inventory and condition information of roads owned by non-BIA and non-tribal entities, such as state and local governments, the meeting participants determined that opportunities exist to work with these external entities to monitor data obtained from them to ensure that it is current and accurate for use and display in the NTTFI. As of June 2019, Interior said that, in anticipation of changes to the NTTFI format, its main actions to address this recommendation will be to coordinate with these external entities to monitor the data they provide to NTTFI to ensure it conforms to NTTFI's new format. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019 Interior reported that BIA had developed a data reporting process that incorporates use of a "time-stamp" to indicate when the level of service for a road section is evaluated. Interior said that it anticipates providing guidance on this process to BIA staff, tribes, and others that perform level of service road maintenance assessments so that they can implement the process in 2020. We will continue to monitor efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019 Interior reported that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had surveyed tribes to determine their capabilities for managing data related to road maintenance costs. Interior further reported that BIA was investigating the use of computer software for tracking road maintenance costs and developing estimates of maintenance needs. Interior said that it expects to complete actions to implement this recommendation in 2020. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In its official comments on our report, Interior said that that it cannot reasonably accomplish this recommendation because, in reference to the tribes which have agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to maintain BIA roads in their area, it conflicts with the intent of federal law and the minimum-reporting requirements when a tribal entity takes over the day-to-day actions and tasks of a program. However, following our report's issuance, Interior told us that its actions to address other recommendations will assist the tribes in developing data on Road Maintenance Program (RMP) funds expended for performed maintenance on BIA roads. In addition, Interior said that tribes have expressed interest in gathering this data. Further, in June 2019, Interior reported that the Tribal-Interior Budget Council had approved a plan for a pilot project in the BIA Great Plains Region to gather data relevant to addressing this recommendation. Even though tribal reporting of this data is voluntary, we continue to believe that by coordinating with affected tribes on developing a process for their self-reporting of RMP funds expended for maintenance, and by implementing such a process for tribes that BIA serves directly, Interior could improve the reporting of maintenance performed on BIA roads and be better positioned to provide Congress with more accurate and complete information on RMP funding decisions. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: At the time of our report, Interior said that it concurred with this recommendation; however, it subsequently changed its position. Interior noted that its tribal and school partners have not requested changes to this formula and that it was therefore not compelled to undertake the rigorous consultation and negotiated rulemaking actions that would be needed to change the formula. As of June 2019, Interior has not acted to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-208, Apr 18, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address the intent of this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. Since we issued our report in April 2017, federal agencies discontinued contributing financial resources to support joint pilot program activities, such as start-up grants, general technical assistance, or evaluations. According to OMB staff and officials at several agencies in August 2018, that change in contributions began with the fiscal year 2018 pilots. At that time, they all told us that relevant agencies would continue to provide staff support to the pilots, as needed. In April 2020, officials from the Department of Education (Education)-the lead agency for overall performance partnership efforts-informed us that six pilots remain active, through September 2020, and were able to provide information about staff resource contributions. For example, Education officials told us that two of the department's employees devote less than 10 percent of their time to support those six pilots. We have requested additional information from Education to better understand staff resource commitments and contributions from other agencies involved in those six pilots.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. In August 2018, OMB staff told us that they were coordinating relevant work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), which is leading the national evaluation for the disconnected youth pilot programs. OMB staff told us this group was studying specific criteria or standards that could be used for assessing the scalability of the disconnected youth pilot programs. In April 2020, DOL officials told us that the department was examining issues related to scalability in products it is developing as part of the national evaluation. For example, the officials informed us that DOL plans to publish a report in summer 2020 that examines the effects of flexibilities tested by individual pilot programs, and their potential to be scaled. Furthermore, DOL officials told us that the department, in coordination with OMB, HHS, and other relevant agencies, had drafted, but not yet finalized, a memorandum that identifies criteria for assessing scalability. We have requested copies of relevant DOL evaluation products and the memorandum. When provided, we will assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.
GAO-17-316, Mar 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6991
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In response to the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FATAA), the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) - Food Assistance Division (FAD) updated its Monitoring and Evaluation policy in February 2019. In addition, in May 2019, USDA provided GAO with a draft evaluation quality checklist (EQC) that the FAS - FAD will use to review draft evaluations. The checklist includes specific questions about the evaluation's design, methodology, findings, and conclusions, among other items. USDA FAS-FAD indicated that the criteria used in the checklist were developed in alignment with our report, the quality checklist developed for an assessment of USAID evaluations, and its own internal criteria. As of July 2019, the EQC was in internal clearance. In November 2019, USDA stated that it was piloting a draft of the EQC, however, a re-organization within USDA had affected the timetable for implementing it. USDA stated that it would wait to finalize the EQC until it was able to potentially adjust it to reflect any new duties or priorities under the agency re-organization. We will continue to follow-up with USDA FAS-FAD to determine whether the checklist has been finalized and implemented.
Agency: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: MCC concurred with the recommendation but noted that its then-forthcoming revised policy on monitoring and evaluation would state that "MCC expects to make each interim and final evaluation report publicly available as soon as practical after receiving the draft report." This revised guidance did not set a specific time frame for the reviews. In a letter provided to GAO in May 2017, MCC stated that it had initiated a re-design of its evaluation monitoring information system to provide MCC with detailed timelines of each component of the evaluation review and publication process. MCC provided additional information regarding actions taken in follow-up to our recommendations in April 2018. In December 2018, MCC provided GAO with a list of evaluation reports that had been released in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Of the 18 reports that were released in 2017 and 2018, 9 were released in six or fewer months after the date of the report and 9 were released more than six months after the date of the report. These review times represented only a modest improvement over what we found at the time of our report. In our report, we found that 6 of the 16 reports we examined were released within six months of MCC receiving the report, and 10 were released more than six months after MCC received the report. We requested an updated list of evaluation reports from MCC in January 2020 and will continue to review the timelines for release of reports.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) - Food Assistance Division (FAD)'s updated Monitoring and Evaluation policy required that all final versions of USDA evaluation reports be made publicly available on the FAS website and that evaluators provide a copy of the evaluation reports that is free of personally identifiable and proprietary information. As of May 2019, USDA has published seven non-sensitive evaluations on the publicly available Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) website. As of July 2019, FAS was drafting internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) for making future and past evaluations publicly available on the DEC. In November 2019, USDA stated that it was piloting a draft of the SOPs, however, a re-organization within USDA had affected the timetable for implementing them. USDA stated that it would wait to finalize the SOPs until it was able to potentially adjust them to reflect any new duties or priorities under the agency re-organization. We will continue to follow-up with USDA FAS-FAD to determine whether the SOPs have been finalized and implemented.
GAO-17-192, Mar 2, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA published a notice in the Federal Register In September 2016 requesting information from the public about how to establish appropriately targeted durations of use for therapeutic products affected by Guidance for Industry #213 with no defined duration of use. According to HHS, FDA evaluated the comments received and plans to develop a strategy to address this issue. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA published a Request for Applications on April 1, 2019 for study proposals to help establish more targeted or defined durations of use for approved medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed of food-producing animals. There are currently no such products approved for use in water with an undefined duration of use. According to HHS, due to significant scientific and technical challenges, FDA anticipates that this initiative will require substantial time to fully implement so the primary objective is to update product dosage regimens to better target when and for how long the drug may be used.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA recognizes that a limited number of medically important antimicrobial products, available in dosage forms other than feed or water (e.g., injectable), continue to be marketed as OTC products and the agency intends to work with the sponsors to put these products under veterinary oversight. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA released a broad 5-year plan in September 2018 outlining steps to support stewardship of medically important antimicrobials in veterinary settings. As part of that plan, FDA intends to publish a draft strategy, likely in the form of draft guidance for industry, to bring all dosage forms (such as injectables and tablets) of medically important antimicrobial drugs under veterinary oversight. The draft strategy will also provide a framework, including proposed timelines, for transitioning from over-the-counter to prescription marketing status for all approved medically important antimicrobial drugs that are not yet subject to veterinary oversight. FDA plans to issue this draft strategy no later than the end of fiscal year 2019. In conjunction with issuing the draft strategy, FDA intends to publish a list of affected new animal drug applications.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS noted that FDA has taken steps to develop performance measures and targets. According to HHS, FDA issued a final rule in May 2016 revising annual reporting requirements for drug sponsors of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals to obtain estimates of sales broken out by major food-producing species (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys). Additionally, in August 2017, FDA published a paper proposing the use of a biomass denominator to adjust annual data on the volume of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals in the United States. According to HHS, this adjusted estimate will provide insight into broad shifts in the volume of antimicrobials sold for use in food-producing animals. FDA is also funding two grants for antimicrobial use data collection. These collection efforts are intended to provide part of the baseline information on antimicrobial use practices in the four major food-producing animal groups (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys), which is a critical element in measuring overall impact of the agency's judicious use strategy. FDA expects these data collection efforts to provide important information on methodologies to help optimize long-term strategies to collect and report such antimicrobial use data. In addition, FDA has been working in close collaboration with USDA, including providing input on recent surveys administered by USDA to collect information on antimicrobial use on farms. In July 2019, according to HHS, FDA agrees that performance measures and targets are needed to help gauge the success of antimicrobial stewardship efforts. While the agency continues to work on developing such measures and targets, FDA reported a decrease in domestic sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials intended for use in food-producing animals (e.g. decreased by 33 percent from 2016 through 2017). HHS noted that the reduction in sales volume is an important indicator that ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact even though sales data do not necessarily reflect antimicrobial use.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2018, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) stated that it is working closely with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and HHS' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a framework for deciding when on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities are warranted. In September 2019, according to APHIS officials, the lead agencies, including APHIS, FSIS, and CDC, have agreed that it is imperative that cross sector partners from a range of animal agriculture industries be included in developing the framework that was requested in GAO's final report. A framework for making decisions regarding on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities simply will not work without including industry sector partners in the development of the framework, according to APHIS officials. Due to the logistics of getting all of the cross sector partners together, APHIS is unable to schedule the next meeting in the series to develop the Pre-Harvest Framework until December 2019. APHIS anticipates that it will take the remainder of fiscal year 2020 to work through additional meetings with partners and finalize this framework.
GAO-17-331, Feb 16, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection: Office of the Commissioner: U.S. Border Patrol
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it planned to develop metrics for southwest border security operations. To fully implement it, the Border Patrol should complete its efforts to develop metrics for assessing the contributions of pedestrian and vehicle fencing to border security operations and apply these metrics when making resource allocation decisions. As of October 2019, DHS stated that they have developed and are testing the initial metrics. DHS stated that they will continue to gather data over the next two fiscal years (FY20-FY21) which will help to identify if these metrics are accurately representing realities in the field. The estimated completion date is September 2021.
GAO-17-302, Feb 16, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, the agency provided an update of their recent efforts, including their revised Commercial Services Improvement Plan. This plan include performance goals and general time frames , however did not include performance measures or specific targets for each of the initiatives. The agency has subsequently reviewed this plan and determined that many of the goals and time frames identified were not realistic to achieve, making it difficult to establish performance measures or targets. As of July 2020, the agency is currently updating its 2015 Strategic Plan and reviewing the improvement plan to identify those items that will be feasible to implement. According to agency officials, they plan to develop goals and performance targets where feasible and develop time estimates for achieving them. Since this effort is currently underway, we will update the status of their efforts in the summer of 2021.
GAO-17-165, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: District of Columbia: Executive Office of the Mayor
Status: Open
Comments: In 2017, D.C. education officials stated they planned to continue to deepening their collaboration to reduce disciple rates. In May 2018, the D.C. Council passed the Student Fair Access to School Amendment Act of 2018 which, among other things, directs the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to provide schools (including charters) with a variety of supports and assistance on discipline and trauma-informed programs. We have reached out to OSSE and the Deputy Mayor's office for updates on implementation of the law and any additional collaboration. As of June 2020, we are awaiting a response.
GAO-17-58, Feb 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In its February 26, 2018 report to Congress on actions NRC has taken in response to GAO recommendations, NRC continued to disagree with the recommendation to expand its existing data collection requirements or to transition such information from its existing NRC databases to the NSTS. NRC stated that, as required by 10 CFR Part 37, "Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material," the NRC currently collects the number of shipments and mode of transport for domestic transfers, and the import and export of Category 1 quantities of radioactive material. Additionally, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 110, "Export and Import of Nuclear Material," the NRC stated that it collects the number of shipments and mode of transport for the import and export of shipments containing Category 2 or higher quantities of radioactive material. The NRC stated that it is the agency's position that the current information collected provides the NRC with an understanding of the potential modes of transport for Category 1 and 2 quantities of radioactive material and existing regulatory requirements provide robust protection for all such modes. The NRC stated that it does not consider the proposed additional information collection activity to be of sufficient safety or security benefit to justify the associated regulatory actions it would require. In August 2019, and again in August 2020, the NRC reaffirmed its disagreement with this recommendation and that it did not intend to take action to implement it. Despite its disagreement with this recommendation, we will continue to monitor whether NRC takes any actions that would result in addressing the concern GAO raised.
GAO-17-191, Jan 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In the Bureau's March 2017 action plan, it reported that as the Census Bureau develops enhancements to the procedures and training for enumerators, it will reflect on what it has learned from 2016 Census Test experiences as well as from recommendations such as this. It reported a target completion of December 2018, following completion and analyses of the nonresponse follow-up operation for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In January 2018, Bureau officials told us that leveraging enumerator collected information on the best time to conduct an interview would not be a part of questionnaire design's functionality for 2020 and will most likely rely on the system optimizer to determine the best time to contact a household. Bureau officials indicated they may push this recommendation out to 2030. During the 2018 Test, we continued to observe that enumerator notes were not being systematically reviewed by supervisors and managers, such that information such as office hours for apartment managers among other information we reported on was not being used by the operation. In June 2019, the Bureau informed us that it had added functionality to the enumerator device for enumerators to alert supervisors of case notes of "high importance" and was revising training to explain its use. Additionally, in December 2019, the Bureau shared documentation that reiterated the importance of enumerators reviewing prior case notes but clarified that enumerators should not expect their supervisors to regularly review those case notes. In April 2020, Bureau officials indicated that it was not likely that the Bureau would revise CFS training to systematically review case notes for the 2020 cycle, though we are following up with the Bureau to see if this can be done given the revised census time frames stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. To fully implement this recommendation for 2020 and for future fieldwork, the Bureau needs to make better use of the information collected by enumerators during interview attempts about when to make additional attempts, such as during reported working hours of property managers for large multi-unit structures that house a large number of non-respondents.
GAO-17-169, Jan 12, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concurs with GAO's recommendation. In December 2017, CMS cited ongoing efforts related to claims data submitted by states through T-MSIS, CMS's new claims reporting system. Efforts included validation checks of personal care service claims to ensure that key data are not missing or incorrect. In addition, CMS stated it was working with the states to address concerns that are identified with the quality of claims data submitted. However, as of March 2020, CMS had not reported that it had addressed inaccurate state reporting of expenditures through CMS's expenditure reporting system, Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System (MBES). Complete implementation of the recommended action will better ensure state reporting of claims and expenditures is accurate and will allow CMS to effectively perform key management functions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concurred with this recommendation. However, as of March 2020, CMS had not developed a plan for analyzing and using personal care services data as GAO recommended in January 2017. Developing a plan for analyzing and using personal care services data for program management and oversight is an important step CMS needs to take to improve the oversight and management of personal care services.
GAO-17-102, Dec 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed that guidance should be provided to IRA owners and custodians. In 2018, IRS stated that it had discussed this issue with Counsel and Treasury, and it was agreed that fair market value would be a part of the IRA guidance project under the 2017 Priority Guidance Plan. IRS officials said that these new regulations would address FMV for certain categories of hard-to-value unconventional assets. IRS further noted that it would be premature to modify instructions and guidance to custodians on how to determine and document FMV for hard-to- value assets until the new regulations are issued. In their October 2019 update of planned guidance projects, Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and IRS still listed planned IRA regulations. GAO will not close this recommendation as implemented until the new valuation guidance is issued.
GAO-17-56, Dec 5, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on the draft report, State concurred with this recommendation and said that it seeks to make the Trafficking in Persons Report as useful as possible to a broad array of stakeholders and will continue its commitment to ensure each narrative better serves this purpose. GAO analyzed State's 2017, 2018, and 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report and found improvements in the explanations in narratives for Tier 1 countries. However, narratives for some Tier 1 countries did not clearly explain their placement, including language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria and ambiguous language that meant we were unable to determine how State had determined whether certain standards and criteria were met. As of December 2019, GAO is continuing to monitor State's efforts to fully implement the recommendation. GAO will review State's upcoming 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report.
GAO-17-52, Dec 2, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, VA has taken some actions to address this recommendation, but additional actions are needed to fully implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information from VA.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of June 2017, VHA still lacks data and performance measures for the availability under Choice of sex-specific care, such as mammograms, maternity care, or gynecology. In contrast, for another VA care in the community program, PC3 (a program that the Choice third party administrators also administer) VHA collects data and has performance measures to evaluate women veterans' access to mammography and maternity care. To fully implement this recommendation, VHA needs to extend the collection of data to include care delivered through the Choice Program and other community care programs and establish related performance measures. VA is in the process of letting contracts for its new community care program and is expected to have contracts in place for all regions of the country in fiscal year 2019
GAO-17-3, Nov 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 5, 2020, NIST has not convened a governmentwide effort to provide the best available forward-looking climate information to standards developing-organizations.
GAO-17-110, Nov 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB is finalizing finalized expanded guidance and procedures on coding whistleblower data. MSPB is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place for identifying and using appropriate whistleblower codes; however, MSPB is limited by its various legacy applications with regard to the improvements related to data entry that can be implemented at this time. MSPB currently is in the process of designing new core business applications that will incorporate appropriate data quality, integrity, and accountability measures to further improve its data management practices. Until the new case management system is in production in FY 2020 or early FY 2021, MSPB remains committed to utilizing the resources necessary to ensure the accuracy of its reported data. To achieve this objective, experienced attorneys reviewed, validated, and, where necessary, corrected agency whistleblowing data prior to public release in FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. MSPB is committed to this extra layer of review for FY 2019, and will continue to evaluate how to achieve this objective given other workload and available resources. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB stated that it completed drafting the data integrity study mentioned in our previous response, looking at the current processes and integrity of case-related data as a whole throughout the agency. As explained above and highlighted in MSPB's FY 2018 Annual Report, MSPB's initiative to design and configure new core business applications currently is underway, and the findings in the study are integral to incorporating the appropriate data integrity processes, including quality checks and controls, into these new applications. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
GAO-17-28, Nov 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concurred with GAO's recommendation. On December 30, 2016, the agency issued guidance on the Community First Choice program to assist states in submitting information to CMS on the health and welfare of beneficiaries. In March 2019, CMS officials stated that the agency is currently developing the process for states to report this information to CMS. Agency officials also stated they are exploring the value of collecting this information for the Participant-Directed Option program given the limited number of states currently operating under this authority. In February 2020, CMS officials stated that the agency continues to develop policy related to this recommendation.
GAO-17-61, Nov 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. CMS officials told us in July 2019 that they do not plan to implement this recommendation. We maintain that adding national comparison information is important.
GAO-17-91, Nov 17, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT published the Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains final rule in February 2019. As of September 2020, PHMSA indicated that it wanted to close out the recommendation by adding 2 questions to the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grant application asking SERCs whether they receive information on High-Hazard Flammable Train operations and whether they are disseminating this information to local planning entities. OMB is currently reviewing the additional information request. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address the recommendation.
GAO-17-133, Oct 17, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to develop and implement performance measures for its credentialing program. In its response to the recommendation, DOD stated that servicemembers are not required to earn credentials and more than half of the credentials earned by servicemembers are voluntary. Therefore, establishing criteria that might create an incentive to force servicemembers into earning voluntary credentials would be counterproductive. DOD also stated that a basic reporting system is in place that captures credential attainment and associated costs that provides basic information to gauge the program's performance. As of April 2020, the department still does not plan to develop performance measures for the program.
GAO-17-5, Oct 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2019, HHS told us that CMS completed an analysis to determine which measures-from the core measure sets that CMS and private payers have agreed to use-are feasible to develop as electronic clinical quality measures. Further, in April 2019, CMS officials told us they will consider developing new electronic clinical quality measures where appropriate and feasible to fill future measure needs or gaps identified by the Core Quality Measures Collaborative (CQMC). However, we determined that the actions did not fully address the recommendation because they do not include efforts to work with ONC to prioritize their development of electronic clinical quality measures for the CQMC core measure sets. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, HHS told us that CMS had conducted an assessment of the impact of selected measures used in its quality programs and has linked key component of that assessment to some meaningful measure areas that CMS has identified as priorities. However, this document did not include elements of a comprehensive plan--such as setting timelines-for how to target its development of new, more meaningful quality measures that will promote greater alignment. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-17-122, Oct 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. Subsequently, in September 2018, DOT rescinded the ECP brake rule. As a result, DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not intend to create a plan to collect data from railroads' use of ECP brakes.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. DOT subsequently rescinded the ECP brake rule in September 2018. As a result, this recommendation is currently no longer relevant and DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not plan to implement this regulation.
GAO-17-127, Oct 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2700
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM told us it will establish a plan to make payroll data available through analytical tools such as FedScope no later than the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to improve the availability of payroll data-either from the existing EHRI system or the new employee digital record-by ensuring the data are prepared and made available for analytics research.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM reported that it plans to begin follow-up efforts with agencies and shared service providers on payroll data errors and anomalies and to notify data providers of problems. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to follow up with shared services centers and agencies regarding issues identified with the payroll data they submit to EHRI. These steps will help ensure the quality of historical and current payroll data. They will also ensure that system detected errors are resolved and do not compound over time.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with our recommendation, but has not yet developed a plan for integrating payroll into the larger suite of EHRI databases.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: While OPM concurred with our recommendation, the agency has not evaluated or implemented, for Payroll data, the control activities and edit checks that are currently used to support the reliability of the other EHRI datasets.
GAO-16-667, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA regarding the reporting of costs for defending lawsuits in which the plaintiffs prevailed.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA to require Justice to make changes to its Litigation and Compliance reports.
GAO-16-768, Aug 24, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3149
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of May 2020, State had taken some steps to coordinate with OMB and USAID to improve the quality of data reported for ForeignAssistance.gov. Notably, in May 2020, State and USAID submitted a joint report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate the two federal websites reporting foreign assistance spending--ForeignAssistance.gov (managed by State) and explorer.usaid.gov (managed by USAID). As part of the plan, State and USAID will establish a joint data governance structure to reduce discrepancies in data, bolster the capacity of agencies to submit data, and ensure the accuracy and quality of data. Once the governance structure is finalized, they will send a copy to GAO. GAO will then review this information to assess if it sufficiently addresses GAO's recommendation.
GAO-16-469, Aug 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' use of incremental development. Specifically, in September 2020, HHS officials reported that they have established a draft policy and anticipate publishing the finalized guidance by March 2021. We will continue to evaluate HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department had developed draft guidance to address our recommendation, but did not provide time frames for when the guidance would be finalized. Until the department establishes a CIO certification policy, Treasury will not be able to fully ensure adequate implement of, or benefit from, incremental development practices. We will continue to evaluate Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-16-679, Jul 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-28334
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: FAA did not concur with this recommendation. In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA does not plan to implement the recommendation because the agency continues to believe the subjective nature of volume of work makes it an ineffective risk indicator. However, the agency monitors many factors as primary risk indicators at repair stations. Many of these risk indicators are associated with important aspects of work volume such as high workforce turnover; changes in management; rapid growth or downsizing; changes in aircraft complexity/programs; financial conditions; age of fleet and increases in aircraft discrepancies. FAA considers these factors and the criticality of a specific maintenance action on an aircraft to be the most important risk indicators.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA plans to develop overall program goals and metrics as part of the next implementation phase of its new Safety Assurance System. These metrics are expected to be fully developed based on the final design of the new system and the program requirements identified. Final system testing and deployment into production for the Safety Assurance System is expected to be completed by February 2021, with final implementation scheduled to be completed by May 2022. Additionally, prior to deploying the system, FAA plans to provide training courses to the aviation safety workforce who will be using the new system, and plans to issue new policy documentation in June 2020 that will be used to provide additional guidance to that workforce on properly using the system.
GAO-16-546, Jul 19, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: At the time of our report, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation but stated that it did not believe convening a forum was the most strategic use of resources because agencies were not far enough along with their data collection efforts. We disagree with OMB's assertion because 7 of the 10 data collection efforts have been in place for more than 10 years, and several have been in place for multiple decades. As of December 2019, OMB has not provided information on any new efforts to establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics.
GAO-16-593, Jul 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) was responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department approved a cost baseline for one of the components of JIE, the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), and developed a cost estimate for another component, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services (ECAPS) program. The ECAPS cost estimate was substantially consistent with the practices described in the report. However, the JRSS cost estimate was not developed consistent with the best practices described in the report. Specifically, the department did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps in the JRSS cost estimate; however, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation. The officials also stated that planning for JIE components other than JRSS and ECAPS had not begun; therefore, there were no other JIE component cost estimates. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network part of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) component; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In addition, In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that another JIE initiative, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services program, had an approved baseline schedule. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the schedule.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network component of JRSS; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO said that the JRSS schedule had not been re-baselined and the department had not developed a schedule management plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement it; however, more needs to be done. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department has developed an inventory of cybersecurity knowledge and skills of existing staff. Specifically, we reported in our June 2018 report Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Improve Baseline Assessments and Procedures for Coding Positions (GAO-18-466) that the department had developed an assessment that included the percentage of cybersecurity personnel holding certifications and the level of preparedness of personnel without existing credentials to take certification exams. In August 2018, the office of the DOD CIO stated that the department planned to identify work roles of critical need and establish gap assessment and mitigation strategies by April 2019. However, as of July 2019, the department had not provided an update on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of August 2018, it has not provided evidence that it has addressed it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In May 2019, the office of the DOD CIO stated that it had developed a schedule to complete JIE security assessments. However, as of July 2019, the office had not provided the schedule or demonstrated that it has a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that includes the rest of the elements of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however it has not fully implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, in April 2017, the JRSS program office documented the methodology, ground rules and assumptions, among other things, used to develop the cost estimate we reviewed in our report, and the JIE Executive Committee established the estimate as its JRSS cost baseline. However, the cost estimate documentation was not sufficient to address our recommendation. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation. EPA also stated that its vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will apply it, where appropriate and cost effective, to program-specific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. EPA noted that not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. As of December 2018, EPA officials said that continued work on this recommendation is dependent upon EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer's deployment of a new performance tracking system and individual program funds for developing systems that interact with it. As of April 2020, GAO is following up with EPA on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (directive). In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing environmental results directive may be superseded or incorporated into a different policy as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to existing policy. In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing policies may be superseded or incorporated into different policies as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation. However, EPA emphasized that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of its new grants management system, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. EPA officials said that the agency expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
GAO-16-542, Jul 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8612
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of December 2019, CBP was taking steps to conduct the type of risk analysis GAO recommended in July 2016. In November 2019 we reported that according to CBP , the agency had developed and successfully tested two models using risk factors including, but not limited to, the type of good, country of origin of the good, and whether the importer is from a foreign country. One test demonstrated that, using data from fiscal years 2007-2015, CBP could have predicted over 95 percent of the importers with delinquent antidumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duty bills in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. CBP requested $17 million in fiscal year 2020 funds to make updates to its information systems necessary to facilitate the implementation of statistical models. CBP is also working on long-term enhancements to the models that it says will leverage additional modeling techniques, such as social network and spatial analysis. Regularly conducting a comprehensive risk analysis of factors related to AD/CV duty non-collection could enhance CBP's capacity to collect additional revenue by enabling CBP to increase bonding amounts for continuous entry and single-transaction bonds for importers with a greater risk of nonpayment. In a December 2019 Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee report, CBP said that it planned to begin rolling out a risk-based bonding framework in March 2020. The new framework relies on a bond formula that is in part based on risk factors identified by the statistical models .
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of December 2019, CBP was taking steps to develop a risk-based AD/CV bonding framework to use in conjunction with the development of an AD/CV risk assessment model. CBP is developing a supplemental AD/CV duty continuous entry bond that incorporates nonpayment risk factors identified in its statistical models and has worked with Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) to test the proposed risk based bonding formula by applying it to historical data. CBP has estimated that the collection rate under the risk-based bonding framework using the proposed formula would have been significantly higher than the collection rate under its existing bond policies during fiscal years 2007-2017, both in number and value of the bills collected; however, COAC members said the proposed bond formula would have resulted in overinsurance, which could increase cost to importers. The use of supplemental continuous entry bonds may require regulatory changes and modifications to CBP's database. CBP has also conducted an analysis of the use of single-transaction bonds using historical data, and found that this procedure would have allowed CBP to collect significantly more revenue in fiscal years 2007-2018. CBP is working with COAC members to test a risk-based application of single-transaction bonds to historical AD/CV duty entries to assess whether the bond would have reduced the amount of uncollected duties. In a December 2019 Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee report, CBP said that it plans to rolls out its risk-based bonding framework in March 2020.
GAO-16-607, Jul 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, BLM's "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements" rule (43 C.F.R. 3179.301) took effect, revising the 2016 rule. According to BLM in July 2020, the revision satisfies the intent of the recommendation because the rule specifies the acceptable means of estimation or measurement of vented or flared gas. The rule says the operator may estimate or measure vented gas in accordance with applicable state or tribal regulatory agency rules or regulations, estimate using the gas to oil ratio (GOR) test (which, during GAO's review, some BLM officials said was not accurate), or to "measure" the volume of the flared gas. We do not believe the revised rule provides sufficient additional specificity on how natural gas emissions should be estimated by operators.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, ONRR reported that it developed and implemented two disposition codes--one for the royalty-bearing flaring of gas and another for the royalty-bearing venting of gas volumes. ONRR did not develop additional disposition codes because, according to BLM, other disposition codes would not be required due to BLM's 2018 revision of the methane rule. However, we do not believe the measurement provisions in the revised methane rule contain any specific provisions requiring reporting for combusted and non-combusted lease use gas. Gas could be used on lease in pneumatic valves, which is released into the atmosphere as methane; or combusted to power up generators, where it's released as carbon dioxide. Knowing whether the emissions are in the form of methane or carbon dioxide is critical to helping Interior accurately estimate greenhouse gas emissions.
GAO-16-286, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3489
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has made progress on this recommendation by (1) aligning guidance on the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory to redefined Management Headquarters Activities, (2) requiring service components to revalidate DOD function codes assigned to billets when providing data to support the IGCA inventory, and, (3) providing documentation to show it had aligned total obligation authority and manpower information in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documentation to demonstrate that guidance had been implemented. In addition, DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. When the department documents alignment of major headquarters activities with civilian and military manpower information and improves functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD had made progress on this recommendation by documenting it had aligned manpower and total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. As of August 2020, the department had not, however, finalized the definition of major headquarters activities in its guidance. When the department formalizes the definition in guidance and improves its functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and estimate related resources.
GAO-16-516, Jun 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Justice: Bureau of Prisons
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2017, BOP reported that it developed a revised Statement of Work (SOW) for use with its RRC contractors that requires the contractors to track and report to BOP on, among other things, the number of placements into and releases from RRCs and home confinement; revocations from RRCs or home confinement; and RRC and home confinement residents that have secured full, part-time, or temporary employment. In a March 2019 update, BOP stated that it awarded nine contracts under the 2017 SOW and plans to use the data required under the SOW to conduct annual performance appraisals for RRCs after each performance period and intends to use this information in the future to track outcomes of the programs (e.g., employment, housing, individualized goals of offender). In a May 2020 update, BOP stated that that it had just received the first quarter of data from many of its RRC providers and that it continues to work with the providers to refine the data to determine if it can be utilized to develop performance measures. BOP stated that it anticipates being able to provide an update on this phase of their effort in September 2020. While the collection of this data is an important step, to fully implement this recommendation, BOP also needs to define and develop performance measures by which it can use such data to report and assess outcomes program-wide. We will continue to monitor BOP's ongoing efforts.
GAO-16-514, May 26, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2016, we reported on the Department of Homeland Security's management and oversight of short-term holding facilities. We found, for example, that only 4 of 17 Border Patrol holding facilities posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS OIG to file general complaints, and the remaining facilities did not have information posted on any complaint mechanisms, such as the Joint Intake Center or CBP INFO Center. In December 2016, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) sent a broadcast to ICE field offices stating that posters should be visible at all of ICE ERO temporary holding facilities. This broadcast directed ICE ERO Field Office staff to immediately post copies of the Detention Reporting and Information Line poster, both in English and in Spanish, in temporary confinement areas or other areas so that it is visible to individuals in custody at ICE ERO temporary holding facilities. With regard to CBP, in October 2019, officials informed us there is no current CBP guidance requiring signage in CBP holding facilities to communicate complaint mechanisms other than the Prison Rape Elimination Act poster, which relates to reporting mechanisms for any potential incidents of sexual abuse and assault. In September 2020, CBP told us it planned to implement the necessary corrective actions to close this recommendation by March 31, 2021. In order to be able to close the recommendation as implemented, we will need to see updated guidance to the field about the posters that should be displayed in CBP facilities.
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, OMHA and DAB were considering the cost and technical feasibility of collecting this information within their appeals data systems. As of August 2018, OMHA has begun to take action on this recommendation. Specifically, in the July 2017 interim release of the Electronic Case Adjudication and Processing Environment (ECAPE) system, OMHA added a "Reason for Disposition" data field. However, the "Reason for Disposition" data field is currently limited in the number of reasons that can be selected, and ECAPE has not yet been rolled out to all OMHA offices. In May 2019, HHS reported that OMHA had modified the "Reason for Disposition" data field to capture more categories, and that DAB had modified its case management system to capture the reasons for appeal decisions at Level 3 and was working to develop system interoperability with ECAPE. In August 2019, OMHA officials noted that ECAPE had been implemented in 6 of OMHA's 10 field offices and was on track to implement ECAPE in all 10 field offices and its satellite office by the end of 2019. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information regarding DAB's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, this information was not captured in any CMS system, including MAS. HHS reported that if MAS is modified to capture the amount of Medicare allowed charges at stake, OMHA will consider modifying its Electronic Case Adjudication and Processing Environment (ECAPE) to include this information as well, and DAB can capture it in a new case management system currently being developed by the agency. As of August 2019, HHS officials stated that developing a methodology to estimate the amount that CMS would have paid providers is complex and would not be appropriate for use in determining whether the appeal meets the amount in controversy requirements for a Level 3 appeal. The basis for our recommendation was also so that HHS could better monitor important appeal trends. Additionally, without this information, HHS does not know the actual amount of Medicare reimbursement at issue in the appeals process. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information regarding HHS's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, HHS reported taking several initial steps to standardize data across Medicare appeals systems. As of August 2018, HHS was continuing to take steps to implement GAO's recommendation to standardize data collection on appeals across its multiple data systems. Specifically, HHS stated that, in November 2016, CMS and OMHA modified the MAS system to standardize appeal categories between Levels 1 through 3, which will help to facilitate more accurate trending analyses across appeal levels. Further, as of April 2017, all Part A Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC), who are responsible for Part A Level 1 appeals, were successfully processing appeals in MAS, according to HHS. In August 2019, OMHA officials noted that the ECAPE system, which will interact with MAS for reporting purposes, had been implemented in 6 of OMHA's 10 field offices and would be implemented in all 10 field offices and its satellite office by the end of 2019. However, Part B and DME MACs, which are responsible for Part B and DME Level 1 appeals, have not been fully transitioned to MAS. Therefore, appeals categories are still inconsistent for these claims. According to HHS, CMS has not received funding to transition the remaining Level 1 appeals contractors to MAS. Additionally, HHS reported that DAB continues to explore ways to develop interoperability between MODACTS and OMHA's ECAPE system. Therefore, we will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-16-337, Apr 25, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency also noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement. DOL reported in 2018 that it is reviewing its options for moving forward and is exploring accurate coding and recordkeeping of MSDs and drivers for underreporting in poultry processing and elsewhere. As of March 2020, OSHA stated that it continues to examine ways to work with BLS to address the recommendation. We will monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement, particularly due to privacy concerns related to using form 301 (injury and illness incident report) and form 300 (log of work-related illnesses and injuries. DOL also noted that form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) does not have the specificity necessary to develop an understanding of worker injuries and illnesses in specific occupations. Our report explained that plants may use various job titles in their OSHA logs for sanitation workers they employ directly. However, those workers who are employed by contracted sanitation companies may be included in the sanitation companies' OSHA logs, and there may be nothing to indicate that their workplace is a meat or poultry plant. Thus, the problem is not the data source, but rather how to identify these particular workers by occupation and by industry in order to collect information about the full extent of injuries and illnesses in meat and poultry plants. We reiterate our recommendation that OSHA should work together with BLS to study how to regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and noted the previous difficulties NIOSH has had gaining access to these workplaces and the potential resource commitment involved in conducting such a study. We acknowledge this access challenge and noted in our report that OSHA has negotiated access for NIOSH in other industries, hence the rationale for recommending that NIOSH may want to coordinate with OSHA. In February 2020, NIOSH reported it met with industry associations to discuss areas of mutual interest for research on worker safety in poultry plants. However, according to NIOSH, the advent of COVID-19 and its challenges have limited plans for field studies for FY20. During the COVID-19 epidemic NIOSH informed us its representatives have: (1) created COVID-19 safety guidelines with OSHA and (2) performed more than 30 meat and poultry worksite evaluations focusing on the prevention of COVID-19. NIOSH notes that it continues to have an interest in learning more about and providing assistance to minimize various types of illnesses and injuries that may affect meat and poultry sanitation workers, and at some point in the future they hope to "re-initiate" their interactions with stakeholders such as the National Chicken Council and US Egg & Poultry Association on the study of peracetic acid exposure in the poultry processing industry. Our recommendation was aimed at increasing the understanding of the various types of illnesses and injuries that are common among meat and poultry sanitation workers, including their causes and how they are reported. We look forward to hearing about future studies that address this topic.
GAO-16-349, Mar 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC had not performed a review of joint sales agreements (JSA) as GAO recommended, and an FCC official stated that FCC had no plans to perform such a review. FCC issued a public notice in 2016 reminding stations of their obligation to file JSAs in their public inspection files in 2016. This recommendation remains open.
GAO-16-119, Feb 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
GAO-16-220, Feb 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, USDA had taken relevant and positive actions but had not yet fully implemented GAO's February 2016 recommendation for monitoring wild, native bees. According to a senior USDA official, a Native Bee Monitoring Steering Committee composed of representatives from four USDA agencies is developing a response to the recommendation. According to the official, the steering committee has taken or plans to take several steps regarding a monitoring plan. First, the steering committee held a stakeholder listening session in June 2017 to obtain public opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring program is important, (2) the type of information and data needed to adequately conduct monitoring, and (3) how the public would like to see the monitoring data used. Highlights of the input received at the listening session and the goals of the national monitoring plan were discussed in a symposium held in November 2017 at the National Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. USDA gathered additional recommendations from symposium participants based on monitoring programs for other declining species of concern, such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Second, the steering committee drafted a prospectus that will delineate activities being conducted by relevant federal agencies with responsibilities for surveying species of concern, including plans to coordinate activities and outline individual roles and responsibilities towards facilitating a national monitoring plan. According to the senior official, the committee worked with USDA officials to ask other federal agencies associated with the Pollinator Task Force to summarize their current and future activities in support of monitoring native bee populations. The committee completed its report entitled The Current State of Federal Agency Coordination in Monitoring Native Bee Health in January 2019. Third, the steering committee held a "Scientists' Summit" in April 2018 at the National Conservation Training Center. The purpose was to obtain scientific expert opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring strategy is needed; (2) what such a monitoring strategy would measure and be used for; (3) standard minimum protocols that would improve data quality and sharing; and (4) databases that could be used to house data from a monitoring strategy. Participants included university and governmental experts on bees, statisticians, modelers and ecologists, and conservation biologists assessing other species in decline. Workshop discussion leaders subsequently drafted for publication in a scientific journal a whitepaper with recommendations on a U.S. national native bee monitoring strategy. However, as of October 2019, according to senior USDA officials, the white paper had not yet been accepted for publication. We support the agencies' efforts to date to implement the recommendation. However, we believe that the agencies must take additional steps to improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations and will continue to monitor their actions. In 2020, according to a senior USDA official, a National Native Bee Monitoring Research Coordination Network is being formed to address GAO's recommendation to develop a federal monitoring plan for wild, native bees, with the project expected to begin in spring 2020. Some USDA officials told us that without a team to coordinate a monitoring plan, individual agency efforts may be ineffective in providing the needed information in trends on wild, native bees in the United States. The project is scheduled to be completed in 3 years.
GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In February 2018 DOD issued a policy on harassment prevention and response in the armed services that defined hazing as one form of harassment, and required each military department secretary to provide a plan to implement the policy. As of October 2020, DOD stated that it had assessed that the military services had fully implemented DOD's hazing policy by September 2020. This determination was based on an assessment of military service implementation plans for DOD's harassment prevention and response policy, which includes prevention of hazing. Through ongoing work on hazing in the military, we continue to monitor the extent to which DOD has regularly monitored the extent to which the military services have implemented its hazing policy.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. As of September 2017, DOD had added questions to its survey of servicemembers that would facilitate an evaluation of hazing prevalence but had not yet conducted the evaluation. In October 2020, DOD stated that it need to conduct additional analysis on its survey data and on a hazing/bullying metric developed for DOD by the RAND Corporation, and estimated it would implement this recommendation by October 2023.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.
GAO-16-261, Jan 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3236
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB has taken some actions to address this recommendation related to procurement awards, such as adopting a shorter character limit for the "Award Description" element and providing additional guidance for the "Primary Place of Performance" element. However, it needs to provide additional guidance for these data elements related to grant awards to ensure collection of consistent and comparable information.
GAO-16-167, Dec 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC officials said they are exploring options to address this recommendation and hope to have it implemented in fiscal year 2020.
GAO-16-192, Dec 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: FDA has made changes intended to improve its process for overseeing tracked safety issues, but as of August 2020, FDA was still working on changes to its process for postmarket study data. For tracked safety issues, FDA held a one-day workshop to solicit input from staff on changes to its tracked safety issue process and collect user requirements for a new IT system to support tracking safety issues. In April 2020, FDA finalized new policies and procedures and implemented a new IT system for tracking safety issues. The new IT system allows anyone within FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to enter new safety signals and has integrated product and adverse event dictionaries. FDA stated that integrating standardized data will support consistent regulatory decisions and improve the quality of analysis. For postmarket studies, FDA has indicated that it intends to formally assess the IT needs of users as part of the planned transfer of postmarket data to its new informatics platform. As of August 2020, FDA anticipated creating a project team to address specific concerns related to postmarket study data by the end of calendar year 2020 or the beginning of calendar year 2021. GAO is keeping this recommendation open until FDA has completed its planned improvements to its process for tracking postmarket study data.
GAO-16-14, Dec 3, 2015
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE generally agreed with this recommendation. DOE's Office of Science began collecting investigator demographics during the second quarter of fiscal year 2015 and already retained complete records that enabled the calculation of success rates. According to DOE officials, since September 2017, the other three grant-making components included in our audit have been taking various actions to implement the recommendation. These three components, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), all complete steps to ensure that they retain complete grant life cycle information for each individual award, including complete records of pre-proposal, proposal, and award data in linked electronic files, thus fulfilling the first part of our recommendation. In 2019, EERE coordinated the development of a Federal Register Notice (FRN) regarding data collection jointly with NE and ARPA-E. The FRN drafted by EERE was finalized and published on February 11, 2020 (Vol. 85, Issue 28, Pages 7759-7760 [FR DOC# 2020-02674]). Under the proposed information collection request, an interface will be implemented in DOE grant application systems to allow external users to voluntarily provide a minimal amount of demographic information to comply with this recommendation, pursuant to review by the Office of Management and Budget. On June 30th, DOE officials shared with GAO the draft FRN for the 30-day notice and request for public comment prior to implementation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and noted it is in the process of revising current DOD guidance which will address its Title IX enforcement requirements. In September 2017, a DOD official stated that the agency is in the process of formulating instructions related to both Title IX and Title VI that they believe will address the recommendation regarding Title IX enforcement. In a memorandum issued in December 2017, a DOD official described the agency's corrective action plan (CAP), including drafting an updated rule for the Code of Federal Regulations and the development and issuance of internal DOD policy documents regarding Title IX enforcement requirements. Both of these activities were expected to be completed by June 2019. DOD reported in March 2020 that it is continuing to revise current DOD guidance to address its Title IX enforcement requirements. The Director of DOD's Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) stated in a letter to GAO that the revised Titile IX policy is in the early stages of DOD's policy process. ODEI expressed its commitment to developing the revised policy and ensuring Title IX compliance reviews are conducted as per the revised policy and GAO's recommendation. In September of 2020, DoD sent an update indicating that they will issue a policy memorandum, specifically outlining the requirement for DoD Components who provide financial assistance to educational programs or activities conduct periodic compliance reviews. This is expected to be complete by December 31, 2020.
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In October 2016, DHS indicated that USCIS had established a working group and collected fraud trend information from all eight asylum offices that will be used to inform the development of a risk assessment framework. According to USCIS officials, the Asylum Division, in cooperation with other relevant internal stakeholders such as USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS), completed a draft asylum fraud risk assessment in September 2017. In January 2019, Asylum Division officials told us that they had identified limitations in the data used in the draft assessment. Thus, USCIS was working to complete a revised qualitative risk assessment report for our review. Officials also told us that the report was undergoing additional revisions due to changes in 2019 to the affirmative asylum program, and to reflect updates to the resources dedicated to FDNS's functions. As of October 2020, USCIS anticipates finalizing the report by the end of December 2020. Regularly assessing fraud risks across the affirmative asylum process would provide USCIS more complete information on risks that may affect the integrity of the process and therefore help USCIS target its fraud prevention efforts to those areas that are of highest risk.
GAO-16-48, Oct 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. The Census Bureau informed us in December 2015 that no later than the end of December 2015, it would document how these matters have been addressed in the enumerator training (or in help screens on their mobile device) planned for the 2016 Census Test, and that it would use results and observations from that test to further refine such information for future tests and for the 2020 Census. The Bureau provided us with related training materials for the 2016 Test, yet we made similar observations during the 2016 test and the 2018 End-to-End test. For the Bureau to be informed on any additional training needs or other operational decisions for 2020, it will need to continue to expand its efforts in collecting information on enumerator-reported problems per our 2015 recommendation. In April 2020, Bureau officials said that it was not likely they would be able to incorporate additional changes for the 2020 Census field operations. With the Bureau's more recent April announcement to further delay field operations due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are continuing to ask the Bureau if there is opportunity to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to identify what information it finds valuable to have from its enumerators, such as the incidence of specific technical problems with the survey instrument or mobile device and ensure that enumerators and their first-line supervisors are made aware of the importance of recording such information and how to do so.
GAO-15-671, Sep 28, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, FDA released for public comment its new Draft Guidance for Industry #256 - Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances. The draft guidance describes FDA's policy regarding the compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances including the conditions under which FDA does not intend to take enforcement action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's requirements for approval, adequate directions for use, and current Good Manufacturing Practices. We will review the updated guidance when it is finalized and determine if it addresses this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA indicated that, in response to numerous requests from external stakeholders, the comment period on the draft guidance has been extended to October 2020. Once the comments have been reviewed, FDA anticipates finalizing the guidance by the end of calendar year 2021.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, FDA reported to GAO that when the Draft Guidance for Industry #256 was issued that calendar year, FDA intended to develop a risk-based compliance program to address compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances. As part of that compliance program, FDA reported that it intended to consistently document the basis for its decisions about what actions are taken, for example, warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints. In August 2020, FDA reported that a working group has been formed to develop a risk-based compliance strategy, which will include a process for documenting the basis for FDA's decisions about how or whether it followed up on warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints about drug compounding for animals. FDA anticipates implementing this strategy simultaneously with the finalization of Guidance for Industry #256, which is anticipated to occur at the end of calendar year 2021. We will follow-up with FDA regarding these actions and determine if the actions address our recommendation.
GAO-15-713, Sep 9, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. However, as of September 2018 DOD stated that the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) was continuing to coordinate with the military services to synchronize and clarify budgetary reporting requirements. As such, we believe that this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
GAO-15-710, Aug 31, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that CMS requires MAOs to identify provider availability in certain circumstances, such as in granting exceptions to the agency's network adequacy criteria. CMS also stated that it would consider augmenting MA network adequacy criteria to address provider availability in future years. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that the agency does not currently consider provider availability when reviewing an organization's network adequacy, and this guidance was not updated in 2019. As a result, as of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that the agency has standardized existing protocols to ensure the validity of the Health Services Delivery data submitted by MAOs with regards to exceptions requests and partial county justifications. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that MAOs remain responsible for conducting validation of Health Services Delivery data. Unless CMS verifies provider information submitted by MAOs, the agency cannot be confident that MAOs are meeting network adequacy criteria. As of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In a September 2017 update, the agency stated that it had met the spirit of our recommendation by adding its best practice suggestions of what should be included in the written termination notice to the Medicare Managed Care Manual. However, as we noted in our report, those practices are not required, nor are the letters regularly reviewed. As of September 2019, agency officials have not yet implemented this recommendation.
GAO-15-641, Jul 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action to direct DOT to study this matter.
GAO-15-518, Jul 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, DOL restated its assertion that the employment services most needed by veterans and spouses were already available to them through the state workforce system and should not be offered through another mechanism. DOL pointed to changes in the employment workshops under its Transition Assistance Program, though those changes do not inform the need for any additional services such as Off Base Transition Training workshops. Additionally, DOL noted that Section 502 of the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2016 called for a 5-year longitudinal study of veteran workforce services. DOL concluded a feasibility study in December 2018 and said it will produce a plan to conduct the 5-year longitudinal study, which will inform the extent to which further delivery of employment workshops to veterans and their spouses could fill a niche not fully served by existing federal programs. While completing the feasibility study and planning to conduct the longitudinal study are important steps, DOL has not yet completed that study, nor has it reported to Congress on the extent to which employment workshops might fill a niche not currently served by existing federal programs.
GAO-15-521, Jul 14, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Since our 2015 report, DHS and HHS developed two documents to guide interagency procedures related to the processing of UAC. Specifically, in April 2018, HHS and DHS established a memorandum of agreement regarding information sharing for UAC. Subsequently, on July 31, 2018, DHS and HHS issued a Joint Concept of Operations to memorialize interagency policies, procedures, and guidelines related to the processing of UAC. However, in February 2020, we reported that DHS and HHS officials' indicated that, in practice, the agencies have not resolved long-standing differences in opinion about whether and how agencies are to share information, and what type of information is needed to inform decisions about the care and placement of UAC. In commenting on our draft report, DHS stated that its components are working with HHS to document current information sharing practices, to validate remaining information sharing gaps, and to draft a joint plan between DHS and HHS to ensure that HHS receives information needed to make decisions for UAC. In their comments, HHS officials stated that they intend to reach out to counterparts at DHS in June 2020 to discuss potential periodic updates to the Joint Concept of Operations. In August 2020, DHS informed us that the department is working with HHS to document current information sharing practices, validate gaps, and draft a joint plan between DHS and HHS, among other actions. DHS estimates that it will complete these actions by March 31, 2021. To fully address the recommendation, DHS and HHS should ensure that they have implemented procedures aimed at improving the efficiency and accuracy of the interagency UAC referral and placement process.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Since our 2015 report, DHS and HHS developed two documents to guide interagency procedures related to the processing of UAC. Specifically, in April 2018, HHS and DHS established a memorandum of agreement regarding information sharing for UAC. Subsequently, on July 31, 2018, DHS and HHS issued a Joint Concept of Operations to memorialize interagency policies, procedures, and guidelines related to the processing of UAC. However, in February 2020, we reported that DHS and HHS officials' indicated that, in practice, the agencies have not resolved long-standing differences in opinion about whether and how agencies are to share information, and what type of information is needed to inform decisions about the care and placement of UAC. In commenting on our draft report, DHS stated that its components are working with HHS to document current information sharing practices, to validate remaining information sharing gaps, and to draft a joint plan between DHS and HHS to ensure that HHS receives information needed to make decisions for UAC. In their comments, HHS officials stated that they intend to reach out to counterparts at DHS in June 2020 to discuss potential periodic updates to the Joint Concept of Operations. In August 2020, DHS informed us that the department is working with HHS to document current information sharing practices, validate gaps, and draft a joint plan between DHS and HHS, among other actions. DHS estimates that it will complete these actions by March 31, 2021. To fully address the recommendation, DHS and HHS should ensure that they have implemented procedures aimed at improving the efficiency and accuracy of the interagency UAC referral and placement process.
GAO-15-579, Jul 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
GAO-15-487, May 22, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2016, DOD officials told us that a new DOEHRS version was released that contained several system enhancements and defect corrections to improve overall data quality in the system. However, as of July 2020, DOD had not provided specific information on these system enhancements, which would allow us to determine whether our recommendation has been fully addressed.
GAO-15-434, May 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS better document the process, including the methods used to review recommendations from the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) and the rationale for final relative value decisions. CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that CMS establishes relative values for new, revised, and potentially misvalued physicians' services based on its review of a variety of sources of information, including the RUC. At that time, CMS officials told us the agency was working to improve the transparency of its process by proposing and finalizing changes to the process in the annual rule for the Physician Fee Schedule. Officials estimated that this process would take several years to complete. In order to close this recommendation as implemented, CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation of its process for establishing relative values. As of June 2020, GAO was still waiting on confirmation from CMS that it had completed its enhancement process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services in a way that would allow for greater transparency and documentation. CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation for establishing relative values in order for GAO to close the recommendation. CMS officials agreed the recommendation should remain open as progress continues.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders. CMS did not concur with this recommendation, asserting that the RUC is completely independent of CMS, and as such CMS has no authority to set the RUC's agenda for which services are reviewed. As of June 2020, CMS had not changed its position on the recommendation. We continue to believe that CMS needs to inform the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as it does for potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders. We acknowledge that in 2017 CMS changed its process for establishing relative values by including proposed values for almost all services in the annual proposed rulemaking for the Physician Fee Schedule, which means that the changes in values for potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC are open for public comment before they become effective. However, we continue to believe CMS should inform stakeholders of these potentially misvalued services before CMS receives RUC recommendations for them and subsequently publishes the values in the proposed rule. Doing so would give stakeholders the same amount of time they have to provide input on potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process, as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA). CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that stakeholders have the opportunity each year to nominate potentially misvalued services for review through a public nomination process. In August 2017, CMS officials reported that the final rulemaking for the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule included a data collection effort using PAMA funds and other authorities that will help furnish data to help in valuations for more than half of physician services. However, this effort pertains to global services, which are a specific type of service under the Physician Fee Schedule that include global, professional, and technical components, and does not apply to non-global services, which encompass almost half of physician services. Officials also reported that they had awarded a contract to explore data collection on practice expense and methodologies for using such data when valuing services in the Physician Fee Schedule. However, CMS did not indicate a specific timeline and plan for using the PAMA funds, just that the agency would continue to use these funds to explore more ways to gain improved data. In March 2018, CMS reported that it now incorporates data and expertise from relevant stakeholders-apart from the RUC-into its process for establishing relative values by including any new, revised, or potentially misvalued values in the annual proposed rulemaking, instead of establishing them on an interim final basis in the final rule. This means that the changes in values for services will be open for public comment prior to the implementation of changes to payment. We acknowledge that CMS has made progress towards meeting our recommendation by changing its process to allow for public comments on proposed changes to relative values before they go into effect. CMS has also made progress by beginning to use PAMA funds to assist with valuing global services and exploring avenues for collecting practice expense data. To close this recommendation, we need documentation that CMS has started to incorporate data more broadly into its process for establishing relative values and that it has a documented timeline and plan for how it will use the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. As of June 2020, we had not received this documentation.
GAO-15-243, Mar 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to focus OCS training to all planners, including those outside the logistics directorate. In December 2015, the Joint Staff J7 certified the Joint OCS Planning and Execution (JOPEC) course of instruction for Joint training. The Joint Staff, per this training certification, is working with the Joint Deployment Training Center and the Joint Force Staff College to provide student administrative and course catalog support for future JOPEC training. In August 2020, OSD officials stated that they have secured funding for development of a new, online strategic-level OCS course, which they plan to develop, test, and field in 2021. Finally, OSD officials said that the updated OCS instruction will also address training for planners beyond the logistics directorate; officials anticipate the instruction being issued in late 2020. We will continue to monitor these efforts and this recommendation will remain open at this time.
GAO-15-188, Mar 2, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. Since that time, DOD has taken some steps to implement this recommendation, but has not established department-wide guidelines as we recommended. Starting in September 2018, DOD began providing the military departments with a capability to identify ACAT II and III programs using the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system. The DAVE system is now considered to be a trusted source for ACAT II and III program data. DOD, in consultation with the military departments, established standard data elements for collection across ACAT II and III programs for inclusion in DAVE, but the military departments determine individually what constitutes a "current" program and the types of programs that do not require ACAT designations. As of August 2019, the Army and Navy have established guidance regarding what constitutes an active ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation, but has yet to determine at the department level what metrics should be collected on ACAT II and III cost and schedule performance as we recommended. DOD determined that the use of the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system, which is closely related to DAMIR, was appropriate to collect information on ACAT II and III programs and has made that system available to the military departments. Specifically, DOD provided the military departments with the capability to identify ACAT II and III programs in DAVE/DAMIR in September 2018 and made the DAVE/DAMIR Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) workflow tool for cost and schedule data collection available for components' use in April 2019. However, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the military departments are responsible for individually determining what cost and schedule metrics to collect and monitor for ACAT II and III programs. According to December 2018 Army guidance, the Army will require all ACAT II and III programs use DOD's APB tool by the end of fiscal year 2019 to capture baseline cost, schedule, and performance parameters for ACAT II and III programs. According to Navy officials, the Navy is developing an APB tool in its for a future update of its acquisition information system that will collect APB cost and schedule information for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back on the reliability of the data and plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense directed the military departments and DOD components to assess the reliability of ACAT II and III data, but in July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on the results of the assessments reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Since that time, as of September 2018, DOD began providing standard data elements and definitions of those elements that it collects for ACAT II and III program identification in order to improve the consistency of data. However, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it is still up to the military departments to ensure the accuracy of data entered. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of ACAT II and III data. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on an assessment of the information reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment reiterated in August 2019 that while DOD now provides a department-wide system to be used for collecting basic program data for ACAT II and III programs, it remains the responsibility of the military departments to enter complete and accurate data. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to APB requirements for ACAT II and III programs. DOD has taken some steps related to this recommendation. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, in 2019, DOD made its DAVE/DAMIR APB workflow tool available for military department use, and the Air Force elected to use the tool to create and track APBs for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to notification requirements for programs approaching ACAT I cost thresholds. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed in July 2018 that it does not plan to take additional actions to implement this recommendation, and as of August 2019, that office has not directed DOD components to improve their processes as we recommended .We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-15-226, Feb 26, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In September 2016, the Marine Corps established a Customer Wait Time (CWT) standard and developed CWT metrics that are in alignment with DOD policy. These changes were to be incorporated into Marine Corps policy through their normal Service procedures. As of August 2020, the Marine Corps has the CWT standard included in its new policy document, but the policy is going through internal coordination and is still in draft at this time. Current timeframe for publication is January 2021. Once we confirm the CWT standard is in the issued policy, we will close the recommendation.
GAO-15-250, Feb 18, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness reported that an update of DOD Instruction 3020.41 is in progress, and will include updated SPOT provisions. However, as of August 2020, the updated instruction had not been issued.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated that it agreed to provide clarity regarding the purpose and use of JAMMS to improve the timeliness and reliability of JAMMS data, though it did not agree that such guidance could include direction on the number and location of JAMMS terminals and how frequently JAMMS's data should be uploaded into SPOT-ES. DOD stated that it would revise language in DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, to reflect in policy the requirement to use the entire SPOT Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES), which includes JAMMS. DOD also stated that the combatant commander should establish the requirements for terminal quantities and locations and for data upload schedules based on operational needs in the relevant theater. We agreed with DOD that the combatant commands need flexibility based on operational requirements. In August 2018, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics & Materiel Readiness reported that the update to DOD Instruction 3020.41 is in progress and will clarify information on the JAMMS capability. However, as of August 2020, the updated instruction had not been issued. Updated SPOT-ES Business Rules dated May 10, 2018 incorporate the role of JAMMS in maintaining visibility of contractor personnel.
GAO-15-193, Feb 12, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action had been identified as of December 2019. Addressing this action, which GAO suggested in February 2015, could increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data.
GAO-15-223, Jan 30, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Although OPM did not initially concur with this recommendation, OPM has taken actions towards addressing it by using the EHRI database, in combination with other sources, to generate workforce data to assist agencies in their efforts to identify skills gaps. In March 2019, OPM reported that it believed that collecting staffing gap targets through an alternative system, MAX Collect, would provide a more efficient and accurate means to collect workforce data than EHRI. In February 2020, OPM officials reported that it has used MAX Collect to address a portion of the recommendation by sharing lessons learned to close skills gaps. MAX Collect also stores and makes relevant tools and training available to users. However, OPM still needs to collect and store a consistent set of staffing and competency data. Without the collection and sharing of this data, OPM cannot perform valuable government-wide analysis to predict and address skills gaps in occupations affecting multiple agencies.
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.
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) agreed with this recommendation and reported that it is working to develop data collection plans and explore a potential evaluation that is focused on the Home Care Rule. As part of this effort, WHD noted that it will continue to work with HHS and other federal partners. In FY16, WHD reported that such an evaluation of how stakeholders and affected industries have responded to the rule would be beneficial. However, litigation has delayed implementation and enforcement of the rule significantly, and WHD believes an evaluation at this stage would be premature and would be unlikely to fully and accurately capture stakeholders' responses to the rule and the resulting impacts. Delaying the evaluation would allow WHD to monitor the results of its own investigations and the effects of ongoing compliance assistance, both of which would be extremely difficult to measure at this early stage. In 2017, WHD reported that it will continue to monitor early implementation to determine the appropriate start for any evaluation and lay the groundwork for future assessment, including a plan for how to identify data that would inform such as an assessment. In 2018, WHD reported that it is too early in the implementation phase of the rule to conduct an evaluation of the rule's impact. The Department and WHD continue to engage with HHS to understand stakeholders' responses to the rule. WHD also continues to lay the groundwork for any future assessment by working to identify data sources that would inform such as an assessment.
GAO-15-11, Oct 20, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-15-79, Oct 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. In July 2019, OPM officials told us that they have not finalized the remaining regulations due to legal and practical concerns related to employees serving overseas. For example, the proposed rules could conflict with overseas personnel observing local holidays for security, diplomatic, and practical reasons. OPM also announced that it is reconvening its interagency working group for dismissal and closure procedures to update its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. In addition, in response to our recommendation, in May 2015, OPM issued a fact sheet on administrative leave, which discusses the appropriate use of an agency's administrative leave authority, including a definition of administrative leave as well as applicable government-wide, individual agency, and emergency policies on the use of administrative leave. However, this fact sheet will need to be revised to reflect the newly issued regulations for "weather and safety leave" in addition to the regulations for the other categories of paid leave when they are in effect. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated fact sheet guidance, should help agencies and federal employees appropriately use, record, and report administrative leave. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once all the regulations are finalized and the fact sheet guidance is revised.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. To accompany the final regulations for "weather and safety leave," OPM issued two new data standards for agencies to report Paid Holiday Time Off and Weather and Safety Leave Hours Used that became effective in May 2018. Also, in November 2018, OPM released an update to its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated guidance to payroll providers for reporting paid administrative leave and the new leave categories, should help agencies report comparable and reliable data to EHRI. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once the regulations are finalized and the guidance is revised.
GAO-15-38, Oct 7, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, FDA said that the recommendation should be closed as not implemented. FDA has previously said that it remained concerned that the disclosure of pesticides for which FDA does not test would enable users to more easily circumvent the pesticide monitoring program, which could jeopardize public health and, at a minimum, would undermine FDA's law enforcement efforts. In addition, FDA said that it discloses in its annual reports all pesticides tested for within the reports' annual scope as required by the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988. FDA's annual reports also clarify that not all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances were analyzed. FDA said that the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988 does not specifically direct the agency to report information on untested pesticides with EPA-established tolerances. We continue to believe that disclosing the pesticides that are not included in FDA's testing program would be consistent with OMB best practices for reporting limitations relevant to analyzing and interpreting results from a data collection effort. In particular, we continue to believe that FDA should be more transparent about the potential effect of not testing for all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances. We also note that the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service implemented a similar recommendation to disclose information about its pesticide monitoring program. As a result, we are keeping this recommendation open.
GAO-14-537, Sep 9, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA disagreed with our recommendation. Although VA agreed that census tract data was more precise than the county-level data NCA was using, the department disagreed that using this more precise data to make decisions would lead to different outcomes. Instead, VA believed that NCA's methodology of using county-level data was sufficient for estimating the number of served and unserved veterans. We disagree with VA's assertion that using more precise data to identify served and unserved veterans would have no effect on the outcome of VA's decisions about cemetery locations or prioritization. In 2019, VA officials provided new information that they make decisions on cemetery locations based in part on the projected, county-level veteran population 30 years in the future. VA officials expressed concern that there would be too much uncertainty trying to perform such long-term population projections at the census tract level. We believe VA's position has some basis, and therefore have removed the priority designation from our 2014 recommendation. However, as we reported in 2019 (GAO-19-121), we continue to maintain the validity of our recommendation and believe that comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with estimates based on current county-level data would provide a useful supplement to the VA's use of long-term projected county-level population data.
GAO-14-571, Jul 31, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS generally agreed with this recommendation. Although CMS reports using MA encounter data for purposes other than risk adjustment, as of February 2020, it has not fully developed specific plans and time frames with dates for all uses. CMS reports that it has begun testing the use of MA encounter data for public health purposes, such as identifying beneficiaries with a history of opioid-related overdose and with other conditions, such as cancer and sickle cell. Further, CMS uses MA encounter data to help identify beneficiaries at risk in areas affected by public health emergencies. CMS reports that its Office of the Actuary (OACT) has used MA encounter data to analyze MA beneficiary utilization of certain Part B drugs. Further, OACT reports that it intends to assess other areas where it could use MA encounter data, such as analyses comparing Medicare fee-for-service and MA. As of February 2020, the agency has not developed specific plans and time frames for this and other intended purposes. For example, although CMS intends to use MA encounter data for program integrity purposes, it has not yet developed specific plans and time frames to do so. We will continue to monitor CMS's progress in developing specific plans and time frames with dates for all intended purposes of MA encounter data.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS generally agreed with this recommendation, however, HHS did not commit to completing data validation before using MA encounter data for risk adjustment. As of February 2020, CMS has continued to make progress in examining the completeness and accuracy of MA encounter data, but more work remains to fully validate these data. CMS has developed and is implementing an MA Encounter Data Integrity and Monitoring plan, which includes data analysis, guidance, and monitoring. As part of this plan, CMS has established preliminary performance metrics for MA encounter data completeness and accuracy. CMS is also conducting analyses related to accuracy and completeness, but has not established performance benchmarks for these analyses. While the agency plans to communicate findings from the analyses to Medicare Advantage organizations, it has not yet done so. Finally, CMS has not verified MA Encounter data by reviewing medical records. While these steps are encouraging, without fully validating the completeness and accuracy of MA encounter data, CMS would be unable to confidently use these data for risk adjustment or other program management or policy purposes.
GAO-14-627, Jul 29, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) acknowledged that it lacks adequate data on state financing methods for overseeing compliance with a certain federal requirement related to the nonfederal share and that it will examine efforts to improve data collection toward this end. In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. The proposed rule would establish new policies and codify existing policies related to reporting the sources of funds used to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments. For example, the proposed rule would require states to report, at the aggregate and provider level, contributions to the state or local governments used as a source of the nonfederal share for Medicaid supplemental payments. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule, as well as review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation. GAO maintains it is important that CMS and federal policymakers have more complete information about how increasing federal costs are impacting the Medicaid program, including beneficiaries and the providers who serve them and plans to continue to monitor CMS's actions to help ensure that states report accurate and complete data on all sources of the nonfederal share.
GAO-14-476, Jun 30, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4456
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB has taken several steps related to this recommendation as of December 2019, but have not fully addressed it. Specifically, working with the Department of the Treasury to implement the DATA Act, OMB took partial action on two aspects of the recommendation and are still considering actions on two others. 1) OMB staff said they continue to deliberate on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. 2) OMB staff provided a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) addressing the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements for recipient information related to classified or sensitive information. GAO reviewed the FAQ and determined that additional guidance is still needed to ensure complete reporting of unclassified awards as required by FFATA. 3) OMB staff have agreed that it will be important to clarify guidance on how agencies can report on award titles that appropriately describes the awards' purposes and noted that they are working on providing additional guidance to agencies as part of their larger DATA Act implementation efforts. 4) OMB released policy guidance in May 2016 (MPM 2016-03) that identifies the authoritative sources for reporting procurement and award data. However, GAO's review of this policy guidance determined that it does not address the underlying source that can be used to verify the accuracy of non-financial procurement data or any source for data on assistance awards.
GAO-14-441, Jun 5, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of 05/01/2019, Congress has taken no action.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: As August 2018, DOL continues to accept meetings with interested stakeholders on issues related to its 5500 Modernization Project. However, EBSA does not at this time have an expected next action date for this project. The decision was made in the development and clearance of its Spring 2018 regulatory agenda to classify this project as a long-term action.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In 2016, DOL in coordination with IRS and PBGC has implemented cross-year edit checks into EFAST in an effort to improve the consistency in key identifying information, such as the EIN, Plan Number and Plan Name. These checks aim to verify identifying information submitted on the Form 5500 and to notify the filer and government agencies of inconsistencies, which affords filers the ability to review and modify crucial identifying information prior to submission. Additionally, if the filer chooses to submit data that may contain inconsistent information, the edit test indicators provide government users with the ability to more readily detect filings containing potential errors in the identifying information for further review and correction. IRS has also collaborated with DOL and PBGC in issuing proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Series in a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions. The deadline for public comment ended December 5, 2016. The proposed revisions in the Notice reflect efforts of DOL, IRS, and PBGC to improve the Form 5500 reporting for filers, the public, and the agencies by among other things, (1) modernizing financial information filed by regarding plans; (2) updating fee and expense information on plan service providers with a focus on harmonizing annual reporting requirement with DOL's 408(b)(2); financial disclosure requirements; (3) enhancing the ability to mine data files on annual returns/reports; and (4) improving compliance with ERISA and the Code through selected new questions regarding plan operation, service provider relationships, and financial management of plans. Specifically, in the Notice the agencies propose that Schedule H report assets held and assets disposed of during the plan year to provide more transparency and a more complete report of plan's annual investments and that that the Schedule of Assets be revised to require reporting of assets held through direct filing entities. Additionally, the agencies are proposing revisions to the Schedule H, Schedule of Assets that require filers to complete standardized Schedules in a format enabling data to captured electronically. This requirement would enable importation of information from the Schedules of Assets into structured databases that DOL would make available to the public from each year's Form 5500 Series filing. The agencies are also proposing to add clarifying definitions and instructions to improve the consistency of Form 5000 responses. This includes clarification of conventions to identify filers by name and identifying numbers to help mitigate confusion about legal identities with which plans transact and improve comparability of form data across filings. In addition, the agencies also propose revisions to Schedule C to require reporting of indirect compensation for service provider subject to 408(b)(2) requirements and for all compensation that is required to be disclosed. Further, the Schedule C instructions would be clarified to track more closely with the language of the 408(b)(2) regulations. The agencies are also proposing to limit the codes for Schedule C and requiring the filer to more simply indicate all types of services for each provider identified. Additionally, they propose a requirement to indicate all the types of fees/compensation separately when reporting sources of compensation from parties other than plan and plan sponsor. The agencies are reviewing the public comments and expect the process to continue through 2017. While the Agencies have made considerable efforts to address our recommendation in the proposed revisions to the Form 5500, they have not made any decisions on whether to make changes to the forms or DOL regulations, and have not decided on a timeline for implementation of any changes to the form or DOL regulations that the Agencies ultimately may decide to adopt. We will close this recommendation once the revision is final.
Agency: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: In 2016, DOL in coordination with IRS and PBGC has implemented cross-year edit checks into EFAST in an effort to improve the consistency in key identifying information, such as the EIN, Plan Number and Plan Name. These checks aim to verify identifying information submitted on the Form 5500 and to notify the filer and government agencies of inconsistencies, which affords filers the ability to review and modify crucial identifying information prior to submission. Additionally, if the filer chooses to submit data that may contain inconsistent information, the edit test indicators provide government users with the ability to more readily detect filings containing potential errors in the identifying information for further review and correction. PBDC has also collaborated with DOL and IRS in issuing proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Series in a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions. The deadline for public comment ended December 5, 2016. The proposed revisions in the Notice reflect efforts of DOL, IRS, and PBGC to improve the Form 5500 reporting for filers, the public, and the agencies by among other things, (1) modernizing financial information filed by regarding plans; (2) updating fee and expense information on plan service providers with a focus on harmonizing annual reporting requirement with DOL's 408(b)(2); financial disclosure requirements; (3) enhancing the ability to mine data files on annual returns/reports; and (4) improving compliance with ERISA and the Code through selected new questions regarding plan operation, service provider relationships, and financial management of plans. Specifically, in the Notice the agencies propose that Schedule H report assets held and assets disposed of during the plan year to provide more transparency and a more complete report of plan's annual investments and that that the Schedule of Assets be revised to require reporting of assets held through direct filing entities. Additionally, the agencies are proposing revisions to the Schedule H, Schedule of Assets that require filers to complete standardized Schedules in a format enabling data to captured electronically. This requirement would enable importation of information from the Schedules of Assets into structured databases that DOL would make available to the public from each year's Form 5500 Series filing. The agencies are also proposing to add clarifying definitions and instructions to improve the consistency of Form 5000 responses. This includes clarification of conventions to identify filers by name and identifying numbers to help mitigate confusion about legal identities with which plans transact and improve comparability of form data across filings. In addition, the agencies also propose revisions to Schedule C to require reporting of indirect compensation for service provider subject to 408(b)(2) requirements and for all compensation that is required to be disclosed. Further, the Schedule C instructions would be clarified to track more closely with the language of the 408(b)(2) regulations. The agencies are also proposing to limit the codes for Schedule C and requiring the filer to more simply indicate all types of services for each provider identified. Additionally, they propose a requirement to indicate all the types of fees/compensation separately when reporting sources of compensation from parties other than plan and plan sponsor. The agencies are reviewing the public comments and expect the process to continue through 2017. While the Agencies have made considerable efforts to address our recommendation in the proposed revisions to the Form 5500, they have not made any decisions on whether to make changes to the forms or DOL regulations, and have not decided on a timeline for implementation of any changes to the form or DOL regulations that the Agencies ultimately may decide to adopt. We will close this recommendation once any revision are made final.
GAO-14-446, May 30, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2014, DOD concurred with our recommendation. Since then, DOD has made some limited progress toward integrating considerations of climate change into the processes of certain military services' military construction programs. For example, in 2016 briefing slides presented to congressional staff, the Army noted that two military construction projects were sited in a manner specifically designed to mitigate the impacts of climate change. However, as of March 2020, DOD had not provided us with evidence that the department's components have clarified instructions associated with the processes used to compare potential military construction projects for approval and funding. Thus, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-14-453, May 14, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS stated that it understands the objective of this recommendation and, at such time that resources are available to enhance capabilities, it would consider the proposed methodology of advanced testing. However, based on current and anticipated budget constraints, it does not expect its plans to change in the near future. As of September 2020, there has been no change. As such we will continue to monitor progress.
GAO-14-194, Feb 10, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, FDA told us that it was using its drug shortage data system, the "Shortage Tracker," to summarize information reported by manufacturers as the reasons for existing shortages. The agency indicated that it was developing a model that would factor in drug shortage data, warning signs identified through social media, and other factors to help identify early indicators that may predict future shortages. In July 2019, the agency indicated it could conduct periodic analyses of the causes of drug shortages. However, FDA had not yet proactively conducted any rigorous analyses of predictors of drug shortages to help recognize trends, clarify causes, and resolve problems before drugs go into short supply. In an August 2020 written response, FDA reported that it was undertaking modeling efforts to explore the feasibility of predicting future drug shortages using machine learning approaches. FDA planned to complete the initial modeling by fall 2020, at which time it would identify next steps. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-14-114, Feb 3, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: FMCSA did not agree with our recommendation, disputing the methodology and conclusions in our report. However, we continue to believe that addressing Safety Measurement System (SMS) methodology limitations has merit and could help the agency better target FMCSA's resources to the carriers that pose the highest risk of crashing. For example, we found FMCSA requires a minimum level of information for a carrier to receive an SMS score; however, this requirement is not strong enough to produce sufficiently reliable scores. As a result, FMCSA identified many carriers as high risk that were not later involved in a crash, potentially causing FMCSA to miss opportunities to intervene with higher risk carriers. To fully implement this recommendation, FMCSA should revise SMS methodology to account for data limitations that limit comparisons so that the FMCSA is better positioned to identify and mitigate carriers that pose the greatest safety risks. FMCSA has recently developed and tested a new methodological approach that could potentially account for the limitations we identified. While FMCSA has not yet committed to deploying the new methodology, they hope to do so some time in 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed with the basic principles that GAO addressed in this area, but disagreed with GAO's characterization of FMCSA's proposed Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) rule. In January 2016, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a revised methodology for issuance of a safety fitness determination for motor carriers. Specifically, the new methodology would have determined when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles in or affecting interstate commerce based on the carrier's on-road safety data; an investigation; or a combination of both. However, in July 2018, in part due to a review of SMS by the National Academies of Science congressionally mandated evaluation of SMS, FMCSA announced that the enhancements previously proposed will not be completed.
GAO-14-103, Jan 9, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.
GAO-14-75, Dec 16, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials reported that they were implementing new requirements for qualified CDRs, but these requirements were not related to demonstrating improvement on the measures of quality and efficiency, as GAO recommended. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation beyond providing limited technical assistance to qualified CDRs through monthly support calls and an annual kick-off meeting. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-14-108, Dec 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In providing comments on this report, OMB generally concurred with this recommendation. The FAR Council members issued a timetable in Spring 2020 for the proposed regulatory changes to address the use of reverse auctions in response to GAO's recommendations and 2015 guidance released by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The notice of proposed rulemaking was planned for August 2020. As of August 10, 2020, the notice of proposed rulemaking had not been published. OMB officials did not provide a revised date when they planned to publish the notice.
GAO-14-5, Dec 3, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we determined that NMB had taken some steps to further implement key information security practices, but had not fully implemented this recommendation. We reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB continued to only partially follow the eight key information security practices in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). NMB must take other steps, such as providing risk assessment documentation of its enterprise network for fiscal year 2019. NMB officials stated that the agency plans to address several of these practices by the end of fiscal year 2020. They further noted that they hired a Chief Information Officer and planned to hire additional staff and employ contractors to aid in these efforts.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB had taken some steps to implement information privacy practices, such as designating a privacy officer. However, NMB must take additional steps, such as specifying whether a system of records notice would be developed, as required by the Office of Management and Budget.
GAO-14-59, Nov 21, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Bureau agreed with this recommendation and stated that it had already begun maturing project schedules to ensure that the logical relationships between discrete schedules were put into place. Schedule integration sessions across projects and programs were held in late January 2014 and into February 2014 and periodically since then, where work was deconstructed into detailed schedules. The Bureau released its operational plan and other documentation in November 2015 and announced in June 2016 that it would finalize and release its 2020 Census schedule in July 2016. In 2015, the Bureau provided us with a preliminary output from its risk analysis software as a demonstration of the type of analysis it had committed to, but since then its officials have said that they will not be able to take all the steps needed to satisfy this recommendation for the 2020 Census. The Bureau took steps toward conducting quantitative schedule risk analyses with its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules in order to conduct such analyses is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps to carry out quantitative risk assessments of its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.
GAO-14-15, Nov 6, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS officials had previously indicated that DHS's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) and Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis (OCIA) have discussed an update of the GPS risk assessment. Additionally, information from DHS shows that DHS has continued other efforts to collect potentially relevant threat, vulnerability, and consequence data for various GPS equipment in use. For example, according to DHS officials, DHS has conducted visits to major maritime, finance, wireless communications, and electricity firms to gauge their understanding of GPS vulnerabilities and of technology- and strategy-based efforts to improve GPS resilience, and DHS documentation shows that DHS has held events to test GPS receivers as part of assessing vulnerabilities. In August 2020, DHS officials provided GAO with additional information regarding their progress on implementing the recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation after we review the additional information from DHS.
GAO-13-663, Sep 25, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.
GAO-13-792, Sep 25, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office is updating fiscal year 2017 estimates in its Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) system to reflect separate officer and enlisted training costs. If more specific cost estimates are required, users of FCoM are directed to cost estimating tools operated by the military departments.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report in Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, a cost estimating function for Reserve Component personnel far exceeds the combination of variables for developing active component and DOD civilian cost estimates. Due to the scope of the Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) contract, OSD(CAPE) has not adopted this recommendation in terms of a web-based application. However, OSD(CAPE) intends to address general business rules for Reserve Component cost estimates in the next DoDI revision.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, OSD(CAPE) has reviewed the inclusion of payments that the government makes to retirement and health benefits. All identified costs that are attributable to current retirees and past service of active civilian and military personnel, such as unfunded liabilities, are being revised in the cost estimating guidelines. OSD(CAPE) intends to incorporate these changes in the next DoDI revision and coordinate a review with the Office of the DoD Actuaty.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilian and Contractors, the department's efforts to improve data sources are ongoing.
GAO-13-661, Sep 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. As of March 2016, DOD had not implemented this recommendation and stated that the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan currently provide sufficient guidance in this regard. As of March 2019, DOD has decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to DOD Corrosion Office officials, they plan to list measures of achievement for the military departments to follow on the departments' corrosion project in a new DOD manual on corrosion. The Office's goal is to create this new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-13-572, Aug 23, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with the recommendation and has initiated action to update its application for permit to drill (APD) permit processing system. This new system will be known as AFMSS II and, when fully implemented, may address GAO's recommendations. Currently, BLM's actions are insufficient to close this recommendation because they have not completed the updates to AFMISS. Specifically, BLM has not completed its update of AFMSS II to cover environmental inspections. We will continue to follow up with BLM as the agency continues to take action to improve its well tracking system. BLM said it intends to update AFMSS II to cover environmental issues and projects that the remaining AFMSS II related tasks ensuring the system's full deployment will be completed by March 2020. In October 2019, we requested an update on BLM's timeframes.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, BLM informed us that the agency has taken several corrective actions to address the implementation of the recommendation, which will be accomplished related to the redesign of its Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS). However, the agency reported that this system will not be completed until March 2020. In October 2019, we requested an update on BLM's timeframes.
GAO-13-662, Aug 22, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, IRS had taken some steps to implement this August 2013 recommendation, but had not developed a plan to track and reinvest any savings. IRS provided documents from October 2019 which discussed how portfolio management is used as a tool to prioritize and allocate time to eight compliance program areas, including CAP. IRS officials explained that any hours saved in a compliance program area are reallocated to the same or another compliance program area based on the division's strategic priorities rather than a plan focusing on CAP. Furthermore, CAP has not yet achieved the desired outcome of saving resources, according to IRS. If IRS finds any savings from CAP, it will need to develop a plan for reinvesting it to expand audit coverage. Without a plan for tracking savings and using them to increase audit coverage, IRS cannot be assured that the savings are effectively invested in either CAP or non-CAP taxpayers with a high compliance risk.
GAO-13-145, Aug 8, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is providing status information on conditional registrations issued from 2000 through 2020 on the web at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/conditional-pesticide-registration. However, because plans are not yet complete for automating data related to conditional registrations to more readily track their status and related information, this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, due to the government shutdown and delays in the award of its mission support IT contract, IT modernization efforts enabling the Office of Pesticide Programs to track conditionally registered products electronically are now targeted for completion in 2021 rather than 2020.
GAO-13-603, Jul 24, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations began working with a contractor to develop a comprehensive CBP position allocation methodology and tool. According to CBP officials, the purpose of this tool was to ensure a data driven, transparent process for allocating CBP resources--including staff--to land ports of entry on the southwest border. CBP officials stated that the contractor completed the tool in January 2018, CBP tested the tool in fiscal year 2018, and CBP planned to implement the tool in fiscal year 2019. However, CBP officials told us in September 2020 that a subsequent reorganization of the Office of Field Operations rendered the tool unusable without further modification. As a result, they used a manual method to allocate staff in fiscal year 2020 and plan to do the same in fiscal year 2021. As of September 2020, CBP officials planned to document the methodology and process they are now using to allocate staff to land ports of entry, including rationales and factors considered, by November 2020. This recommendation remains open.
Phone: (202)512-8612
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Export Enhancement Act [15 U.S.C. Section 4727(c)] states that the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's (TPCC) strategies should establish a set of priorities for federal export promotion activities and propose a unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. In written comments on GAO's report, the Director of the TPCC Secretariat generally concurred with the recommendation on behalf of the Secretary. Nevertheless, the Director noted the TPCC's limited authority over budget reporting and resource allocations and gave examples of some challenges they faced, including shifts in the political and budgetary landscape and how different Administrations and Congresses have emphasized different priorities over time. In the years following GAO's 2013 report, the TPCC has not issued any National Export Strategies (NES), except in 2016; however this 2016 NES did not include any budget information on how resources were allocated by agency and aligned with the strategy's priorities. In August 2020 Commerce officials told GAO they had collected budget information from TPCC agencies related to trade promotion activities (FY19 actual and FY20 requested). They noted that the budget categories and agencies from which it was collected reflected changes in Administration priorities and new Congressional mandates. However, they said this information has not been transmitted to Congress.
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, FEMA continues its multi-year effort to redesign its risk rating system to reflect industry best practices, such as providing credible, understandable rates based on graduated risk. As part of this redesign, FEMA plans to obtain multiple sources of data and information about a property's risk of flooding--from which it may be able to derive elevation information on some properties--to develop the insurance rate. FEMA has delayed implementation of the new risk rating system until 2021, pending further analysis. In addition, FEMA issued a Request for Information on obtaining structural elevation information from third party sources and is reviewing responses from potential vendors. The agency also encourages subsidized policyholders who seek to ensure the appropriateness of their NFIP rates to voluntarily submit elevation documentation. We will continue to monitor the extent to which FEMA is able to produce elevation information for all currently subsidized properties.
GAO-13-534, Jun 28, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.
GAO-13-480, May 24, 2013
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS has taken some steps to implement this May 2013 recommendation. In September 2015, IRS completed a study on whether to transcribe more data from paper-filed returns. IRS officials said the study showed that the benefits to be derived from additional transcription are not significant and would not outweigh the added cost. That study did not provide specific information about the costs and benefits of transcribing information from Schedules C and E. In December 2018, IRS provided a cost-benefit estimate for transcribing all data from Schedules C and E and concluded that the cost of transcribing all additional Schedule C and Schedule E lines would exceed the expected benefits. This analysis satisfied the first part of GAO's recommendation. However, the study did not address whether transcribing certain, select lines on Schedules C and E would be cost-effective, as GAO's recommendation suggested. Having specific data transcribed and electronically available likely will improve the classification of audits as well as the quality of the audits, according to examiners GAO spoke with for the report. As of March 2020, GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
GAO-13-293, May 15, 2013
Phone: (404)679-1816
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) did not concur with our recommendation, stating that the combatant commands had already been reduced during previous budget and efficiency reviews. The department also noted that any periodic review of the combatant commands' size and structure must include a review of assigned missions, and that a requirement for a mission review was not appropriate for inclusion in the commands' guiding instruction on personnel requirements. However, DOD has taken some actions to better manage the combatant command headquarters activities and personnel as GAO recommended in May 2013. First, DOD has taken actions to control management headquarters authorized positions and funding levels across the department, including those at the combatant commands, through the budget process. For example, in a May 2017 memorandum entitled: Lifting the Hiring Freeze for Civilian Employees, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that components must operate within the full-time equivalent authorization and funding limits established in the fiscal year 2017 President's budget, including the Future Years Defense Program. Notably, current baselines, divestiture requirements, and hiring limitations applicable to major headquarters activities remain in effect. Major headquarters activities billet adjustments or growth was not authorized unless approved through the program review and budget process. Additionally, in the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the defense committees by January 1, 2020 that provides a description of the headquarters staff of each geographic combatant command, as well as each sub-unified command and service component command under the geographic combatant command. According to DOD officials, as of March 2020, the Department has not completed the report and they could not provide an estimated timeframe for its completion. As part of this effort, the Secretary of Defense was also directed to submit a report by January 1, 2021 recommending the number of military and civilian personnel required in the headquarters element to execute the missions and functions of each geographic combatant command. Further, in a January 6, 2020 memorandum entitled: Department of Defense Reform Focus in 2020, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to lead a series of reviews with the combatant commands in 2020, to focus on strategic priorities, harvest opportunities to reduce costs, and realign forces and manpower in order to support National Defense Strategy priorities and rebuild readiness. This effort includes establishing a common baseline understanding of all tasks, missions, and overall resources and costs within the commands. According to the memorandum, the goal is to review all the commands in time to inform the fiscal year 2022-2026 program budget review. GAO will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to better manage the combatant command headquarters activities and personnel. Although the department has taken some positive steps, GAO continues to believe that institutionalizing a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of the combatant commands would help to ensure efficient use of resources.
GAO-13-306, Mar 11, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Commission has taken some steps to address this recommendation by making usability improvements to SaferProducts.gov that we identified in our consumer testing in our report. For example, in 2015, the Commission addressed issues identified with the search functionality of the website by improving the advanced search function to enable searches by injury, time period, and location. In August 2018, the Commission clarified the purpose of SaferProducts.gov by adding the tagline (brief text that gives users an immediate idea of what the site does) "Report. Search. Protect." to its website. As of August 2019, CPSC has explored further ways to improve the usability of SaferProducts.gov. Specifically, in February 2019, CPSC published a request for information from the public on how to improve SaferProducts.gov. In March 2019, CPSC held a public hearing to obtain a feedback on how the design of SaferProducts.gov and process of submitting safety reports could be improved. For example, two consumer groups recommended that CPSC further improve the website's search function to yield more relevant and streamlined results and that it be designed for better use on mobile devices. Based on this input, CPSC is in the process of developing a plan for re-designing SaferProducts.gov using modern web-design standards, which includes improving the website's layout and styling, search capabilities, and functionality on mobile devices. According to CPSC, its staff plans to explore cost-effective resources to assess usability and identify further improvements to the website, such as coordinating with the General Services Administration on the design aspects of SaferProducts.gov and using other federal best practices to inform this process. However, no such cost-effective changes have yet been made to the website. According to officials, CPSC plans to begin this re-design in 2019 or 2020 pending available future funding. Until the Commission fully addresses this recommendation, it remains open. We will continue to monitor the Commission's progress in implementing our recommendation.
GAO-13-228, Feb 26, 2013
Phone: (202)512-3236
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) have taken little action to address this recommendation. In August 2017, PIC staff told us that they were working to identify examples where agencies had included representatives from outside organizations in their performance reviews, and would then disseminate promising practices based on those experiences. However, according to information shared by OMB and PIC staff in March 2019, they had not taken any additional action, nor had they identified or shared any such practices. OMB staff emphasized that while some agencies found it is useful to engage external stakeholders in their reviews, agencies generally view them as internal management meetings. OMB's July 2020 guidance continues to direct agencies to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel from outside the agency that contribute to the accomplishment of Agency Priority Goals or other priorities. However, supplementing this guidance with insights into how to do this well could help ensure that agencies can effectively bring together key players to achieve common goals. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-13-150, Dec 19, 2012
Phone: (202)512-7022
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 15, 2020, Section 29 of CPSA had not been amended since 2008. In 2013, a bill was introduced (S.1887) but not passed. That bill would have allowed "the Commission, when sharing information under the federal-state cooperation program with a foreign government agency for official law enforcement or consumer protection purposes, to authorize a foreign government agency to make that information available to another agency of the same foreign government (including a political subdivision of that foreign government that is located within the same territory or administrative area as the agency disclosing the information) if an appropriate official of the foreign government agency disclosing the information certifies (by prior agreement, memorandum of understanding with the CPSC, or other written certification) that it will establish and apply specified confidentiality restrictions under the Consumer Product Safety Act."
GAO-13-36, Oct 4, 2012
Phone: (202)512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA still does not plan to collect General Aviation (GA) flight hour data during registration renewals or annual maintenance inspections because this would require rulemaking and could have a significant economic and paperwork impact on the GA industry. While FAA has made changes to the GA Activity Survey to improve the accuracy of the flight hour data collected for a sample of GA populations, FAA still does not plan to collect all GA flight hour data as part of its GA Activity Survey. GAO maintains that without comprehensive GA flight hour data, estimates from the GA Activity Survey may not be sufficient for drawing conclusions about changes in crash rates over time and that more precise flight hour data could allow FAA to better target its safety efforts within the GA industry.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, GAO confirmed that FAA still does not plan to develop safety targets for different segments of the General Aviation (GA) industry. While FAA's General Aviation Joint Steering Committee was exploring metrics for monitoring different GA industry segments, it was determined that developing credible metrics was not feasible using the GA Activity Survey. GAO maintains that FAA needs to develop specific general aviation safety improvement targets for individual industry segments to support a data-driven, risk management approach.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: FAA reported it established performance measures for significant programs and activities underlying its 5-year strategy. However, as of July 2019 FAA has still not provided GAO with documentation of these performance measures. Without this documentation, GAO cannot confirm that the agency has developed performance measures for each significant program and activity underlying its 5-year strategy.
GAO-12-388, Mar 22, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: PHMSA plans to collect data on previously unregulated hazardous liquid and natural gas gathering lines via rulemakings. PHMSA issued a final rule that covers data collection for hazardous liquid gathering pipelines in October 2019. As of May 2020, PHMSA anticipates issuing the final rule for natural gas pipelines by Fall, 2020.
GAO-11-791, Sep 23, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2013, CMS released average inpatient hospital charge information for more than 3,000 hospitals that receive Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System payments for the 100 most frequently billed discharges using DRGs from FY2011 and corresponding average Medicare payments. Shortly thereafter CMS also released outpatient charges. In April 2014, CMS also released data on payments to physicians under Medicare part B. This represents an effort to provide price transparency, although these are not complete cost estimates according to our definition in this report. As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-11-809, Sep 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that leadership accountability is essential to the success of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and released an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (ODMEO), to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate, at a minimum, compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing polices, plans, and programs. The updated instruction also directs the Commandant, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), to tailor training materials to servicemember professional development levels and associated leadership duties and responsibilities. As of February 2020, DOD had not completed development of the compliance standards or training materials. We will monitor DOD actions on this issue.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has updated its guidance on sexual harassment, including a requirement for sharing the results of command climate assessments with the next higher level of command, but has not yet implemented an oversight mechanism to verify and track commanders' compliance with requirements to conduct such assessments. DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement the recommendation through revisions to its guidance. According to DOD, a 2013 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on sexual assault prevention and response outlined requirements addressing leadership accountability for preventing sexual harassment. The memorandum included a requirement that the results of command climate surveys be provided to the next level up in the chain of command, and it directed service chiefs, through their respective military department secretaries, to develop methods to assess the performance of commanders in establishing command climates of dignity and respect. The Secretary of Defense also issued a memorandum addressing prevention and response of sexual harassment in 2014, and DOD updated its guidance on sexual harassment in 2015. In 2016, DOD stated that further revisions to guidance were forthcoming to provide a framework for oversight of sexual harassment. This framework, among other things, would address standards for holding leaders accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing sexual harassment policies. DOD issued a new DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, in February 2018 but has not implemented an oversight framework as of February 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that as part of its revised guidance it proposed to strengthen and institutionalize the responsibilities and authorities needed for successful implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and issued an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate , at a minimum, (1) long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; (2) results-oriented performance measures to assess effectiveness; and (3) compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing policies, plans, and programs. As of February 2020, DOD has not developed and aggressively implemented an oversight framework, as we recommended. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
GAO-11-703, Sep 7, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: FHWA has taken initial steps to implement a mechanism for state oversight, which includes collecting program implementation information from each state. FHWA plans to convene a working group to review this information and provide feedback to states on their programs. FHWA officials then anticipate sharing best practices and essential requirements for the program through webinars and other technical assistance. As of August 2019, FHWA has gathered information from states and is in the early stages of implementing this oversight mechanism.
GAO-11-365, Mar 23, 2011
Phone: (202)512-7029
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS, as required by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), delayed until 2024 when the bundled payment for dialysis care is expanded to cover oral-only ESRD drugs. Because PAMA requires CMS to use the most recent year of data available to implement this payment change, CMS has been unable to implement our recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation upon receipt of additional information from CMS.
GAO-11-171R, Dec 16, 2010
Phone: (202)512-8246
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-11-45, Dec 14, 2010
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2011, the Bureau reported on the agency's assessment of the partnership program. In September 2014, the Bureau's Path to the 2020 Census, identified the Partnership Program as one of the best methods for communicating the importance of response and states its intent to map out details about the Partnership Program in early 2016. As of March 2018, Bureau officials said they were developing coordination mechanisms between partnership and Area Census Office staff for the 2020 Census. For example, the Bureau updated a form it had used during the 2010 Census to track partnership outreach activities to help facilitate information sharing within the Bureau and said it plans to make additional updates. In March 2019, the Bureau informed us that it is assigning at least one partnership specialist to each census office manager to help address this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, the Bureau had not put in place expectations for how Partnership staff should support area census office staff. We also reported that pluralities of area census office managers we surveyed in March 2020 were dissatsified with the level of clarity of roles and responsibilities of Partnership staff, as well as the level of communication and coordination between Partnership and office staff. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take such steps as documenting for partnership specialists and their area census office manager how they are expected to work together and other significant mechanisms that would increase effectiveness of coordination and communication between partnership and local field office staff.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In September 2012, the Bureau issued its assessment of the Service Based Enumeration Program. The assessment reported on the number of individuals counted and the complexities of this special enumeration activity. The assessment did not address the Bureau's approach to staffing this special enumeration activity. In its 2020 Census Operational Plan, issued in October 2017, the Bureau provided a high level overview of reengineered field operations plans but did not provide details on special enumeration efforts. In April 2018, the Bureau provided us with its planned staffing ratios for its Service-Based Enumeration activity for the 2020 Census in comparison to those used in the 2010 Census, as well as results of its 2016 Census Test of SBE activity. As of August 2020 we have ongoing work that will be examining implementation of peak field operations and providing updates to this recommendation. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate that its planning for how it will determine staffing levels for SBE takes into account the factors that led to inefficient staffing allocation previously.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2012, the Bureau reported on assessments of many 2010 special enumeration activities such as the Service-Based Enumeration and the Be Counted/Questionnaire Assistance Center Programs. These assessments revealed the number of persons counted and spending for the special enumeration activities. Separately, the Bureau issued results of the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Program that described the level of coverage of various hard-to-enumerate populations generally without attributing coverage to specific enumeration activities. Since 2015, the Bureau has issued annual updates of its 2020 Census Operational Plans, which have not provided details of plans for various special enumeration activities. In April 2017 Bureau officials provided us with evaluation results of its 2010 communication efforts and other documents related to ongoing efforts to reduce errors in the census. As of August 2020, we are in communication with Bureau officials about steps they are taking to implement this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate how it is relying on data about how various special enumeration activities of historically hard-to-enumerate groups contributed to census coverage in 2010 to inform its design for the 2020 Census.
GAO-11-55, Oct 22, 2010
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 4, 2020, this matter has not yet been considered by Congress.
GAO-10-349, Feb 10, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .
GAO-10-334, Jan 29, 2010
Phone: (202)512-9039
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action has been identified as of March 2020. Section 141 of division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, extended NMTC through 2020 (Public Law 116-94). However, this act did not offer grants in lieu of credits, as GAO suggested in January 2010. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the cost of this extension to be approximately $1.5 billion. Offering grants in lieu of NMTCs could result in a greater portion of the federal subsidy reaching low-income community businesses.
GAO-10-59, Nov 13, 2009
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule (GAO-14-59), Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. Bureau officials announced they had completed the 2020 Census schedule in July 2016, and have since periodically described their intent to link resources to activities within their schedules. However, as of May 2018, when the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. In July 2018 (GAO-18-589) we reported again on the status of the Bureau's scheduling, stating that when the Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the schedule more effectively as a management tool. The Bureau took steps toward assigning resources to its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps in developing its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.
GAO-09-815, Sep 10, 2009
Phone: (202)512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed to research sole proprietor noncompliance, as GAO recommended in September 2009. It is focusing on those who improperly claim business losses (i.e., not profits). IRS's Office of Research, Analysis and Statistics is using the reporting compliance study of Form 1040 filers to gather the data on such noncompliant business losses. This research covered sampled tax returns filed for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and used audits of the sampled tax returns that are filed for each tax year. In November 2016, IRS research officials provided the initial rough estimates of the percentage of disallowed losses and associated dollar amounts for all 3 tax years but as of December 2019, they had not yet indicated how these estimates helped IRS to understand the nature of the tax noncompliance. The officials cautioned that their ability to develop the estimates depends on the number of observations that can be applied from each tax year. This research, when completed, could help IRS to identify noncompliant sole proprietor issues and take action to reduce losses.
GAO-09-871, Sep 9, 2009
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open
Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.
GAO-09-603, Jun 30, 2009
Phone: (202) 512-8509
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) anticipates adding a performance measurement, called reduction in repeat findings, that relates to assessing the quality of the review. This has been added to FTA's new Quality Review program focused on improving its Triennial Review program.
GAO-09-238, Jan 28, 2009
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action has been taken, as of March 2020, to require payers engaged in a trade or business to report on payments to corporations for services, thereby reducing these payers' burden to determine which payments require reporting, as GAO recommended in January 2009. Reporting of third-party information is a powerful compliance tool, and eliminating the reporting exemption for payments to corporations would be a cost-effective way to improve voluntary compliance.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to IRS, developing such an estimate requires a multi-pronged approach and a large amount of coordinated effort. One prong is to determine the extent of filing compliance among employers. A second prong would determine the extent to which 1099-MISC payers properly report their payments. Starting with the Tax Year 2001 individual income tax reporting compliance study, the National Research Program (NRP) office has been collecting some data related to Form 1099-MISC compliance, from both the payer and payee perspectives. Additional data were generated by the NRP reporting compliance study for employment tax. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Data collected from these studies should shed some light on whether employers are appropriately reporting required payments on Form 1099-MISC. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS researchers collected data on 1099-MISC reporting as part of its National Research Program (NRP) study on employment taxes, a program that involved examinations of a sample of tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Collecting data on this issue will enable IRS to study the nature and characteristics of payers that do not comply with 1099-MISC reporting requirements. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.
GAO-09-146, Dec 12, 2008
Phone: (202) 512-5594
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as GAO suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what GAO suggested in February 2010, GAO maintains that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the Service's Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report and Plan for fiscal year 2019. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of April 2019, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority.
Phone: (202)512-5837
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In April 2018, FEMA officials told us they had begun to redesign NFIP's risk rating system to help ensure policy rates better reflect the risk of flooding. The redesign, known as Risk Rating 2.0, includes efforts to use catastrophe models, stochastic approaches, and updated map information to better reflect the variation in flood risk. These reforms are also intended to improve how FEMA's rating process accounts for general and specific factors that affect flood probabilities and damage. While FEMA initially announced that new rates for all single-family homes would go into effect nationwide on October 1, 2020, it announced in November 2019 that it would defer implementation to October 1, 2021. FEMA said this would allow it to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the proposed rating structure so as to protect policyholders and minimize any unintentional negative effects of the transition, and that the new implementation date would cover all NFIP policies.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, FEMA officials said they had finished identifying properties with grandfathered premium rates and that they planned to analyze their economic implications as part of their efforts to update their premium rate setting approach, known as Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA plans to implement this redesign on October 1, 2021.
GAO-08-731, Jun 26, 2008
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, we continue to monitor the issue.
GAO-08-529, May 23, 2008
Phone: (202)512-7043
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, CMS had taken some steps to address this recommendation but additional actions are needed to fully implement it. In June 2018 CMS issued a Medicaid update to states explaining that CMS strongly encourages them to include unexpected deaths in their definition of reportable critical incidents. CMS also stated in the update that states should conduct a preliminary review of all beneficiary deaths and investigations should focus on those deaths determined to be unexpected. Further, CMS has shared with states best practices for state mortality reviews that include, for example, the use of an interdisciplinary review committee and taking actions to address identified quality of care problems. CMS also developed a webinar training (Incident Management 101) to help states improve their incident management systems for the Medicaid HCBS waiver. The webinar outlines the key elements of building a comprehensive incident management system (e.g., establishing a process for conducting investigations of incidents, tracking and trending incidents to help prevent and mitigate incidents from occurring) and reiterates CMS's expectation that states identify and address unexplained deaths on an ongoing basis in order to meet the waiver's health and welfare assurance. In late 2018, CMS planned to include in its revised waiver application questions to determine practices regarding states' review and evaluation of unexpected deaths. In September 2019, CMS officials notified us that it will provide an updated status report on this recommendation in November 2019. As of August 2020, CMS officials have not provided us information regarding its revised waiver application and technical guide. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive this information.
GAO-07-52, Nov 30, 2006
Phone: (312)220-7767
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation, commenting that the department's goal was to assure that the limited resources of the J-1 visa waiver program and other programs addressing areas and populations with limited access to health care professionals are targeted most effectively. In 2013, HHS indicated that it was considering the best approach to collect information to identify J-1 visa physicians practicing in underserved areas. As of February 2018, however, HHS reported that it does not have the capacity to track physicians practicing in underserved areas through the use of J-1 visa waivers, citing reasons such as the number of federal entities and states involved in the process. While we recognize that collecting and maintaining these data requires coordination with other agencies, we continue to believe that without data on waiver physicians, HHS--the federal agency with primary responsibility for addressing physician shortages--will lack the information needed to consider waiver physicians working in underserved areas when placing providers in these areas under other programs. As of August 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of actions taken to implement this recommendation. We are leaving this recommendation open until the department collects and maintains data on waiver physicians and considers those physicians in its efforts to address physician shortages.