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: "Employee incentives"
GAO-17-715, Sep 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8980
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our report, State concurred with our recommendation. As of January 2020, the Director of ALS has not granted any Director Points since the subject GAO review was completed. According to State officials, should points be necessary in the future, ALS will document why the conditions at relevant posts require the use of Director Points connected with hardship pay rates. We will continue to follow-up on this.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation, and reported that the department is taking a two-pronged approach to reviewing the issue. First, the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of all costs associated with the processing of hardship and other associated allowance and differential cables through reviews of post-level and central expenditures. This review is expected to be complete by October 2020. Second, the Department is costing out alternative methods of addressing allowance and differential costs that reduce the manual effort on the Department but address the need to support costs incurred by Foreign Service Officers overseas. Meetings with Foreign Service Officer staff to understand variances in the current model were held in the summer of 2019. Highlights from those sessions are being incorporated into a proposal to coincide with the review of costs from the first phase. The final proposal is expected to be complete by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. According to State, it continues to identify and seek repayment of improper payments and communicate the importance of timely actions to the regional bureaus and posts to ensure improper payments do not occur. In addition, the Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services (CGFS) supports the roll out of the Overseas Personnel System, which will centralize the collection of arrival and departure data for the calculation of improper payment notification and risk analysis. To fully implement the recommendation, the Bureau of Human Resources (HR) must complete worldwide deployment of the Overseas Personnel System, and both HR and CGFS would need to complete integration work to enable arrival and departure data to flow in an automated fashion between the two systems. CGFS would then need to provide documentation that the system allows it to more easily identify and prevent improper payments. Preliminary development of the integration will begin in the summer of 2020 while the OPS roll-out continues.
GAO-17-39, Feb 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that it will maintain its focus on the recruiting and retention pays for both the active and reserve components, and will continue to work with the Reserve Components to strengthen the collection of the remaining special and incentive pays. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken action on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that DOD does use key principles of effective human capital management, and although not articulated as GAO's principles, DOD's and GAO's principles share common goals and results. In addition, DOD stated that it will support the opportunity to review and improve upon the principles and methods to assess the efficiency of its S&I pay programs, and, where appropriate, will incorporate these principles in future DOD policy issuances and updates. In May 2018, DOD stated that it believed it was in compliance with this recommendation and that the action was complete. DOD stated that this assessment was based on our finding that most of the Department's S&I pay programs either met or partially met the key principles of effective human capital management. But our finding was on select pay programs. Further, DOD's response did not document what actions the Department has taken to ensure all programs fully meet the key principles. As of November 2019 DOD had not taken action on this recommendation. We continue to believe that fully implementing the key principles of effective human capital management that we identified would help DOD and the services to ensure that S&I pay programs are effectively designed and that resources are optimized for the greatest return on investment.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2017, DOD had submitted a proposal to conduct a study focused on aviation officers that will examine the military services' methodologies used to accomplish their retention goals to determine the primary reasons aviation officers remain or leave the service and the degree to which these reasons affect their retention decisions. According to DOD officials, a portion of the study will consider the interaction between monetary and non-monetary incentives such as duty assignments, flying opportunities, reduced administrative burdens, and quality of life. In May 2018, DOD stated that the Military Departments continue to utilize non-monetary incentives as their first approach to access and retain quality servicemembers. DOD added that these incentives consist of choice of career path, duty assignment, selective military training, educational benefits, as well as the career intermission program. DOD noted that the Army's Career Satisfaction Program is just one example of using non-monetary pay incentives to improve retention. According to DOD, this program increases the retention of Army officers at no additional cost to the Army by offering academy cadets and senior ROTC cadets the choice of occupational specialty and assignment location upon commissioning in exchange for extending their active duty service obligation for an additional 3 years. DOD also stated that the Navy currently uses both monetary and non-monetary incentives to retain its surface warfare officer (SWO) community to ensure it retains adequate numbers of officers to fill critical SWO Department Head positions in the rank of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander. The Department concluded that it believes the recommendation is closed, as it has offered and continues to offer non-monetary incentives as part of its S&l pay program, and continues to encourage the use of non-monetary incentives as an alternative to cash incentives. While the programs 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. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that the services are responsible for developing their personnel requirements in order to meet individual service needs and that it has provided the services with the necessary staffing tools to recruit and retain servicemembers in the cybersecurity skill sets. DOD also noted that it is crucial for the services to retain their flexibility to utilize these pays and benefits to address service-specific shortfalls within their cybersecurity workforce and noted that it will assist the services in growing and maintaining their cybersecurity workforce through existing and future DOD policies. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that the services have responsibility for developing their manpower requirements and employing the necessary manpower tools, such as bonuses and incentives, to achieve their goals, including those for the cybersecurity workforce. DOD added that the current suite of special and incentive pays already provides the services the necessary authorities and flexibilities to access and retain servicemembers in their cybersecurity communities. DOD concluded that it believed their actions to address this recommendation were complete. We recognize that the services are responsible for their specific personnel requirements and that flexibility is important. However, as noted in our report, each military service has assigned cybersecurity personnel to military occupational specialties that include other types of personnel skill sets, such as intelligence or information technology. As a result, because the services offer SRBs by military occupational specialty, the services may award SRBs to specialties that include non-cybersecurity personnel for whom the SRB is unneeded. Therefore, we continue to believe that there are benefits to developing approaches to target cybersecurity personnel in non-designated cybersecurity fields and that this recommendation should remain open. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
GAO-16-742, Sep 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2017, Interior officials said the bureaus were developing, or had developed, the means by which they would assess their training needs and review, evaluate, and update their training programs for technical staff. Interior also told GAO that as part of its quarterly review of performance data, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget will ensure that BLM, BSEE and BOEM are coordinating their training needs. Interior officials said that their Office of Strategic Employment and Organizational Development will validate the bureaus' active engagement in this activity and provide support in the fulfillment of this recommendation where needed. In February 2018, Interior officials said the agency had examined results from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey to gauge how the bureaus' training program activities were being perceived by their workforce. In July 2019, Interior officials said they were looking at opportunities to share training resources, and that they would add in their scope an evaluation of training needs and effectiveness. However, as of March 2020, Interior had not provided us with evidence that it has conducted an evaluation of training needs, training effectiveness and sharing training resources.
GAO-14-288, Mar 31, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.
GAO-13-621, Jul 18, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: SEC management and the union agreed in November 2018 to implement a new performance management system and a new incentive bonus program in 2020. According to SEC officials, SEC plans to work with OPM to validate the new performance management system by conducting focus groups with staff at the midpoint of the 2020 appraisal period and surveying staff on the new system at the conclusion of the 2020 appraisal period. These plans are consistent with our 2013 recommendation that SEC should conduct periodic validations of its performance management system. In August 2020, SEC reported that it began implementation of the new 2-tier performance management program and will complete the annual rating cycle in December 2020, with feedback and appraisal closeout activities occurring in early calendar year 2021. According to SEC, OPM will assess the new program after calendar year 2020 performance cycle activities are completed. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in validating the new performance management system.