Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support assesses and addresses the causes of data errors and inconsistent entries in MISLE as identified by program offices and MISLE users, including reviewing MISLE training and data validation processes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support uses the results of its 2019 Standardization Team assessment of command centers to develop a plan for improving the consistency and accuracy of MISLE data identified in its report. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify needed enhancements across the MISLE system by developing an updated mission needs statement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify and analyze alternatives, and objectively select the preferred solution for MISLE to meet approved mission needs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should develop and implement a process to systematically review the reliability of the data used in its Border Security Metrics Report and comprehensively identify any limitations with the data and methodologies that underlie its metrics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the communication of the limitations of the metrics identified through the systematic review in the department's annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In its comment letter, DHS concurred with the recommendation and requested that we consider it closed as implemented because the department already detailed some of the limitations in its fiscal year 2017 report, and plans to continue to identify known limitations and the progress made to mitigate previously identified limitations in future reports. As discussed in the report, we agree that DHS identified and disclosed limitations for some metrics in its fiscal year 2017 Border Security Metrics Report; however, we identified at least one additional limitation for 21 of the 35 metrics on which DHS reported that DHS did not disclose or about which it could have been more transparent. To address the intent of this recommendation, once DHS has implemented a process to systematically review the reliability of the data used in its report and comprehensively identified related limitations, it should disclose those limitations in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. In a May 2020 update, DHS stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans should include the results of sensitivity analyses to key assumptions in its statistical models of unlawful entry estimates in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans should include measures of statistical uncertainty for all metrics based on estimates derived from statistical models in its annual Border Security Metrics Report. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and in a May 2020 update stated that it plans to address this recommendation in its FY2019 Border Security Metrics Report scheduled to be issued in the summer of 2020. We will continue to monitor DHS's ongoing efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Board should work with SSA to explore options for obtaining data electronically and limiting the reliance of the financial interchange process on manual data entry. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open

Comments: RRB reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. In January 2020, the agency received a cost estimate from SSA for a proposed data exchange. In May 2020, RRB and SSA held an inaugural conference call and reached an understanding of the technical requirements to move forward with a data exchange. As of June 2020, RRB reports that systems analysts at SSA are developing the procedures and systems necessary for an electronic data exchange. GAO will close this recommendation when the data system is implemented.

Recommendation: The Board should produce written documentation on the financial interchange process such that a knowledgeable third party could carry out and replicate its process consistently without further explanation. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it has been working to draft documentation of the financial interchange calculation process, and sharing drafts of this documentation with SSA for its review. SSA has requested revisions in this documentation and RRB plans to hire additional staff to implement GAO's recommendation. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB finalizes its documentation of the financial interchange calculation process.

Recommendation: The Board should produce formal policies on how the work of staff performing the financial interchange is reviewed. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it is in the process of developing formal review policies and plans to include them in its written documentation of the financial interchange process. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB's formal review policy is complete.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of SSA should work with RRB to explore options for electronically sharing data and limiting the reliance of the financial interchange process on manual data entry. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SSA reported that it received a data exchange request from RRB in October 2018. RRB proposed to send SSA a file of beneficiary and earnings data, and receive calculations for sample financial interchange cases. RRB and SSA discussed options for exchanging information electronically. In early 2020, SSA reported that it is developing a Rough Order of Magnitude/Cost Estimate for electronically sharing data and limiting the reliance of the financial interchange process on manual data entry under its existing agreement. The agency has no timeline to complete this effort.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of SSA should take additional steps to provide oversight of financial interchange calculations at the individual-case level. This could include periodically reviewing a subset of these cases. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, SSA reported that it has developed plans to review of a subset of financial interchange calculations as the individual-case level. SSA anticipates that this review will take place following the completion of RRB's fiscal year 2021-2022 financial interchange calculations. We will close this recommendation once SSA's review successfully takes place.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should, consistent with its existing statutory authority, take additional steps to provide oversight of financial interchange calculations at the individual-case level. If the Secretary concludes that there are limitations in its authority in this area, the Secretary should seek to obtain the necessary additional authority. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, HHS continues to disagree with this recommendation. HHS officials said that RRB is responsible for certifying its costs through the financial interchange, and that they believe the department lacks the authority to question RRB's calculations. We continue to believe that HHS would be better positioned to ensure that the transfers it makes and receives through the interchange are calculated correctly if it reviews case-level calculations. We will close this recommendation if HHS seeks the authority to review financial interchange calculations or takes other steps to ensure the accuracy of financial interchange calculations performed by RRB.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should provide updated guidance to VAMCs on the governance of the patient advocacy program, including clear definitions of reporting lines. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) to better understand the current state of patient advocacy services in VHA, focusing on position descriptions, grade levels, and reporting structures. VA medical center staff completed questionnaires about the patient advocacy program in January 2019 and VHA analyzed the results. CHOIR officials are conducting site visits to interview key staff directly to identify the benefits and opportunities for improvements with patient advocacy services, including reporting structure. Upon completion of site visits to validate questionnaire findings, CHOIR will present their final recommendations to OPA. OPA will develop reporting structure guidance and work with workforce management and VHA senior leaders to communicate and implement the guidance. VHA's target completion for these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should assess and provide guidance to VAMCs on appropriately staffing the patient advocacy program, including guidance on how to determine the appropriate number and type of staff. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) and VHA's Workforce Management to develop an evidence-based patient advocacy staffing model that accounts for facility size, complexity and geographic region. A set of questions was distributed to all VAMCs in December 2018. Responses to these questions have been analyzed by CHOIR, and on-site interviews at select facilities are in progress to validate the report findings. VHA's Workforce Management is working with CHOIR and OPA to use the results to develop a recommended and validated staffing model. This guidance will also be incorporated in the future revision of the VHA directive. The target completion of these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should monitor PATS data-entry practices to ensure all complaints are entered into PATS and that veterans' feedback is coded consistently. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) receives a weekly report from both the Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS) and PATS-Replacement (PATS-R) Systems reporting on the number of new cases entered at every VA medical center (VAMC). With development of the PATS-R web-based tool, OPA, the Veterans Experience Office and the PATS-R developers have conducted a review of existing codes and are currently working with various VHA program offices to standardize codes across various data systems. VA plans to develop an auditing toolkit to ensure standardized, timely documentation of complaints, including accurate coding within PATS. The target completion date for these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: To help ensure the accuracy of MSPB's reporting on whistleblower appeals received and closed, the Chairman of MSPB should update MSPB's data entry user guide to include additional guidance and procedures to help improve the identification of appropriate whistleblower appeal closing codes to use.

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.

Recommendation: To help ensure the accuracy of MSPB's reporting on whistleblower appeals received and closed, the Chairman of MSPB should add a quality check in MSPB's data analysis and reporting process to better identify discrepancies or other anomalies in data queries and the resulting datasets.

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.

Recommendation: To increase the effectiveness of IRS's examinations individual tax returns, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should transcribe data from paper-filed Form 1040 Schedules C and E that are not currently transcribed and make that data available to SB/SE examiners for classification. If IRS has evidence that the costs related to transcribing all such data on Schedules C and E are prohibitive, IRS could do one or both of the following actions: (1) transcribe less data by transcribing only the missing data for selected line items, such as certain, large expense line items, or (2) develop a budget proposal to fund an initiative for transcribing Schedule C and E.

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.