Recommendation: The Division Director for Risk Management Supervision (RMS) should require case managers to document how high-risk areas in the scoping plan were considered by the examination team if they were not addressed in the examination report. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Division Director for RMS should implement policies to require that higher-level managers review case managers' documentation that describes whether banks have fully addressed MRBAs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Division Director for RMS should revise examination documentation retention policies to increase the retention period beyond one examination cycle for banks with satisfactory or better composite ratings. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The FDIC Chairman should direct RMS and the Legal Division Ethics Unit to develop a process for systematically requesting and collecting information on where departing examiners, including examiners-in-charge, enter into employment after leaving FDIC. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: In order to improve employee misconduct policies and procedures, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to document policies and procedures to address potential Surge Capacity Force misconduct.

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.

Recommendation: In order to improve employee misconduct policies and procedures, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to document Reservist disciplinary options and appeals policies and procedures that are currently in practice at the agency.

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.

Recommendation: In order to better identify and address trends in employee misconduct, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to, once the quality of the data is improved, conduct routine reporting on employee misconduct trends.

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.

Recommendation: To help inform decision makers on the SAMP's progress as well as the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP's term, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP to define timelines and measures to assess its progress in completing its major tasks.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase assurance that commanders are conducting command climate assessments in accordance with statutory requirements and departmental guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to modify existing guidance or develop new guidance to comply with requirements set forth in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and internal DOD guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better inform the department's approach to senior officers' professional development, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to assess its progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, or SAMP's successor organization(s), to identify information sources and develop intermediate goals and performance metrics. At minimum, these performance metrics should be clear, quantifiable, and objective, and they should include a baseline assessment of current performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred, with comment, with this recommendation, noting that the office of the Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism is a temporary office established by Secretary Hagel for a two year term ending no later than March of 2016. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. In April 2018, DOD identified activities it had undertaken in the spirit and intent of the recommendation. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries for documentation in support of these actions and the related development of intermediate goals and performance metrics. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.