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:
Topic: "Information Management"
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-20-562, Jul 16, 2020
Phone: (206) 287-4804
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-20-59, Feb 27, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9342
Agency: National Archives and Records Administration: Office of the Archivist
Status: Open
Comments: The National Archives and Records Administration concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Archives and Records Administration: Office of the Archivist
Status: Open
Comments: The National Archives and Records Administration concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Armed Forces Retirement Home
Status: Open
Comments: The Armed Forces Retirement Home did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Armed Forces Retirement Home
Status: Open
Comments: The Armed Forces Retirement Home did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Armed Forces Retirement Home
Status: Open
Comments: The Armed Forces Retirement Home did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Armed Forces Retirement Home
Status: Open
Comments: The Armed Forces Retirement Home did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the department states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the department states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the bureau states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Election Assistance Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Election Assistance Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Election Assistance Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Election Assistance Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Election Assistance Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Trade Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Marine Mammal Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Mammal Commission did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the commission states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The National Science Foundation concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the foundation states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The National Science Foundation concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the foundation states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The National Science Foundation concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the foundation states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The National Science Foundation concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the foundation states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the National Drug Control Policy did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the National Drug Control Policy did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the National Drug Control Policy did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the office states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Status: Open
Comments: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Status: Open
Comments: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Status: Open
Comments: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Status: Open
Comments: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Peace Corps
Status: Open
Comments: The Peace Corps did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Peace Corps
Status: Open
Comments: The Peace Corps did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Peace Corps
Status: Open
Comments: The Peace Corps did not state whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the agency states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The Udall Foundation concurred with this recommendation. As of June 2020, we had not received information pertaining to planned actions for this recommendation. Once the foundation states that it has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
GAO-20-205, Jan 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, FTA partially concurred with this recommendation. FTA noted that they will direct the National Rural Transit Assistance Program (NRTAP) to create a centralized, searchable library database cataloging all available resources that cover transportation coordination. This library database will include resources developed by FTA, other Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) members, and their technical assistance centers and initiatives, such as the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES). FTA will complete these actions by August 31, 2021. We will review the database and other resources when they become available.
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our recommendation. In a January 2020 update, the department described steps it planned to take to address the recommendation including establishing a team of experts to formulate a comprehensive taxonomy for VistA and all of its components, identifying authoritative and reliable data sources to assign costs to those components, and developing a methodology for ongoing cost tracking and reporting. The department expects these steps to be implemented by September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's progress to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-347, Jun 25, 2019
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education generally agreed with this recommendation. Education stated that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request includes a proposal that Congress pass legislation allowing the IRS to disclose tax return information directly to the department for the purpose of administering certain federal student financial aid programs. According to the agency, such legislation, if enacted, would allow borrowers to more easily certify their income on an annual basis to maintain enrollment in IDR plans, and allow the department to use the information to mitigate improper payments to borrowers as a result of misreported income data. Section 3 of the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act), enacted in December 2019, provided Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). As of August 2020, Education had begun planning for the implementation of the legislation. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that use of this authority to verify eligibility for IDR plans could result in over $2 billion in savings for 2020-2029.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and from January to March 2020 initiated a pilot program with three of its loan servicers to conduct additional verification of income or family size information on IDR plan applications for a random sample of borrowers each month. When initiated, the pilot focused on IDR borrowers who self-certified that they had no income or who reported certain family sizes. According to Education, selected borrowers would be asked to provide documentation to their servicers to support the income or family size reported on their IDR application. In the event errors were identified, servicers would work with the borrowers to update their applications. If these reviews resulted in changes to a borrower's monthly payment amount, the borrower would be expected to begin paying the new amount within the next 60 days. According to Education, as of the end of March 2020 when the pilot was put on hold, participating servicers selected 48,855 borrowers for verification. The verification pilot was put on hold as it implemented student loan relief for borrowers under the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Public Law 116-136). Specifically, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which suspended student loan payments due, interest accrual, and involuntary collections for Direct and Federal Family Education Loans held by Education through September 30, 2020. According to Education, the Department suspended all IDR recertifications during this period. On August 8, 2020, the President issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Education to extend this relief to borrowers through December 31, 2020. Education reported that it will weigh options for resuming the pilot against other critical priorities and available resources, noting that its long-term strategy is to fully implement the authorities granted under the FUTURE Act, which provides Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). GAO will continue to monitor Education's actions in this area, and will close the recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has implemented data analytic practices and follow-up procedures to review and verify that borrowers reporting zero income on IDR applications do not have sources of taxable income at the time of their application.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and from January to March 2020 established a pilot program with three of its loan servicers to conduct additional verification of income or family size information on IDR plan applications for a random sample of borrowers each month. When initiated, the pilot focused on IDR borrowers who self-certified that they had no income or who reported certain family sizes. According to Education, selected borrowers would be asked to provide documentation to their servicers to support the income or family size reported on their IDR application. Education noted that under the pilot, loan servicers were required to request additional information from borrowers to verify family sizes greater than five; specifically, a statement listing each family member residing with the borrower and for whom the borrower pays at least 51 percent of the support. In the event errors were identified, servicers would work with the borrowers to update their applications. If these reviews resulted in changes to a borrower's monthly payment amount, the borrower would be expected to begin paying the new amount within the next 60 days. According to Education, as of the end of March 2020 when the pilot was put on hold, participating servicers selected 48,855 borrowers for verification. The verification pilot was put on hold as Education implemented student loan relief for borrowers under the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Public Law 116-136). Specifically, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which suspended student loan payments due, interest accrual, and involuntary collections for Direct and Federal Family Education Loans held by Education through September 30, 2020. According to Education, the Department suspended all IDR recertifications during this period. On August 8, 2020, the President issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Education to extend this relief to borrowers through December 31, 2020. Education reported that it will weigh options for resuming the pilot against other critical priorities and available resources, noting that its long-term strategy is to fully implement the authorities granted under the FUTURE Act, which provides Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). GAO will continue to monitor Education's actions in this area, and will close the recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has implemented data analytic practices and follow-up procedures to review and verify family size entries in IDR borrower applications.
GAO-19-146R, Dec 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
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-18-93, Aug 2, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency partially agreed with the recommendation, and planned to issue guidance that addressed eight of the 12 CIO responsibilities discussed in this report that were not included in existing OMB guidance. As of July 2020, the agency had not issued such guidance and asserted that its existing Circular A-130 guidance is adequate to address this recommendation. However, the Circular A-130 does not address these 12 CIO responsibilities. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation to define the authority that Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are to have when agencies report on CIO authority over information technology spending. However, as of July 2020, the agency had not updated its definition. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and, in May 2019, the agency revised its departmental policies to address 21 of the 22 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibility is for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to report annually to the head of the agency on progress made in improving IT personnel capabilities. In particular, while USDA's CIO is required to conduct an annual assessment on IT personnel, there is no indication that the results are reported to the agency head. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and, in October 2018, described a a number of steps it planned to take to address the responsibility gaps identified in the report. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will provide updated information when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: We will provide updated information when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The department planned to complete several steps by the end of 2019. When we confirm these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and revised its policies to address three of the 23 responsibility gaps identified in the report. In particular, it has addressed the responsibilities for the Chief Information Officer to: 1) report directly to the agency head or that official's deputy, 2) improve the management of the agency's IT through portfolio review (PortfolioStat), and 3) maintain an inventory of data centers. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address the remaining responsibilities.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation, and revised and provided additional departmental directives and delegations to address 19 of the 21 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibilities are for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to 1) review and approve IT contracts, acquisition plans, or strategies; and 2) ensure that all personnel are held accountable for complying with the agency-wide information security program. In particular, while the DHS CIO has the authority to coordinate with the Chief Acquisition Officer on acquisition strategies, coordination is not the same as reviewing and approving. Regarding holding agency personnel accountable for information security, DHS's Sensitive Systems Policy Directive gives that authority to the heads of DHS's components, rather than the DHS CIO. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The department indicated that it has work underway to address this recommendation, which it plans to complete in March 2020. When we confirm those actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The department planned to review its policies and take corrective actions, as necessary. When we confirm those actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: Justice concurred with our recommendation and started work to address it. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Labor has taken a number of steps in response to this recommendation. However, the agency's policies did not address the six key areas of responsibility for CIOs.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The department has begun changing its policies to address this recommendation. When we review those changes, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT agreed with many of the responsibilities in our recommendation, and in September 2019, the agency planned to leverage their technical infrastructure modernization initiative to further define the CIO responsibilities identified in the 18 responsibility gaps identified in the report. 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 Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2020, is working to address the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but agreed that CIO authorities should be adequately documented in appropriate policies. EPA officials have stated that they continue to work to address this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken to address the 20 responsibility gaps identified in the report, we will provide updated information.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with our recommendation and stated that the agency was updating its policies to address the responsibilities identified in the report. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: NSF agreed with our recommendations, and in February 2020, the agency issued a new CIO Authorities Policy and revised other departmental policies to address 22 of the 23 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibility for the CIO to benchmark agency processes against private and public sector performance has not been established through the agencies' policies. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to the remaining responsibility, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: NRC disagreed with our recommendation but generally agreed with our findings, and the agency had departmental policies to address three of the 15 responsibilities identified in the report. In March 2020, the agency stated it was identifying the appropriate agency policy to amend to address the remaining responsibility gaps. It anticipated that it would complete those updates by the end of the second quarter of FY 2020. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address this requirement.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SBA agreed with most of our recommendations and, in September 2018, the agency said it is revising its departmental policies to address the responsibility gaps identified in the report. SBA's Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) Strategic Plan's revised in 2019 addresses two of the 19 responsibility gaps identified in the report. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
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-18-365, Jun 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: American Battle Monument Commission (ABMC) officials stated they are working to implement GAO's recommendations by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: American Battle Monument Commission (ABMC) officials stated they are working to implement GAO's recommendations. On February 18, 2020, ABMC published proposed revised FOIA regulations which are pending final rule in the Federal Register.
Agency: U.S. Agency for Global Media
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Agency for Global Media (formally known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors) performed a comprehensive review of its FOIA regulations and updated its regulations in accordance with GAO's recommendation. The agency anticipates publishing proposed updates for notice and comment in spring 2020, followed by a final rule.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a department-wide compliance assessment and stated that it plans to use the results of the assessment to help guide the department in identifying best practices and areas of improvement. The department does not have an estimate for when the plan will be complete.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, the Department of Interior informed GAO that the department has created a preliminary backlog reduction plan that includes expanding the use of automation tools, expanding the use of interim responses, and closing the Department's 10 oldest requests. Currently, GAO is awaiting a copy of the Department's backlog reduction plan.
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Status: Open
Comments: GAO is currently awaiting the agency's response to GAO recommendations..
Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Status: Open
Comments: GAO is currently awaiting the agency's response to GAO recommendations.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, the Department of Justice acknowledged that it plans to reexamine its progress and take steps for continued improvement in reducing its backlog. Currently, GAO is awaiting a response from the Department on a publication date.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, NASA agreed to provide agency records of final opinions online. NASA noted that final opinions will be provided online as they are issued and released for public posting. To date, the Department has not posted any final opinions.
Agency: National Transportation Safety Board
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, NTSB provided a plan that laid out tasks for reducing its backlog. The plan did not, however provide milestones or dates for when these tasks would be completed. GAO is currently waiting for the finalized backlog FOIA plan.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: GAO is currently awaiting the agency's response to GAO recommendations.
Agency: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation stated that it has designated the deputy director as the chief FOIA officer. It also noted that the director is at the Senior Level. However, this position is not equivalent to the assistant secretary level identified by GAO.
Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, TVA provided a response to GAO's recommendation to ensure their FOIA tracking systems is compliant with section 508 requirements. TVA is currently performing an in-depth assessment of their tracking system to identify where updates can be made to ensure 508 compliance. TVA expects the assessment to be completed by the end of January 2020.
Agency: African Development Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: U.S. African Development Foundation officials have stated that their FOIA regulations are currently under review and expect them to be published in the first half of calendar year 2020.
GAO-18-327, Jun 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: According to the Department of Commerce, NIST actions in response to the recommendation are in process. In August 2020, Commerce officials stated that the next annual report to the President and Congress was in the review process and is expected to be published this fall.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: According to the Department of Commerce, NIST actions in response to the recommendation are in process and the purpose of licensing royalties will be addressed through a related initiative. The expected completion date for this action has been revised to November 2020.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: According to the Department of Commerce, NIST actions in response to the recommendation are in process. The actions to address it have been discussed by the Interagency Workgroup for Technology Transfer and the FLC, including adding a licensing guide and community of practice for licensing terms to the FLC website. In August 2020, Commerce stated that the expected completion date for this action has been revised to September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD officials stated that DoDI 5538.08, which would require military departments and defense agencies to instruct their laboratories to document their licensing processes as appropriate, is in the review process as of August 2020.
GAO-18-70, Dec 8, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to improve T-MSIS data quality, but further efforts are needed to expedite the data's use in oversight. With regard to obtaining complete information from all states, CMS released additional guidance in March 2019, on state compliance with T-MSIS requirements. This guidance includes the need to resolve data issues associated with 12 top priority items and missing data elements, both of which are key for using T-MSIS data. Further, CMS identified an additional 11 top priority items, noting it also expected states to resolve data issues with these items. CMS reports that it has helped resolve data issues related to these 23 top priority items by sending states summary data on compliance with associated reporting requirements. CMS has notified states of their compliance status and asked non-compliant states to submit corrective action plans. However, CMS reports that the level of states' T-MSIS data completeness varies and agency state liaisons and technical assistants continue to work individually with states to identify, prioritize, and resolve key missing data elements. With regard to identifying and sharing information, CMS has made some T-MSIS data available for use through five T-MSIS analytical files, which include data on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment, demographics, service utilization, and payments. Further, CMS has created resources to support researchers in their use of these analytical files, including information on the completeness and accuracy of certain data elements. With regard to implementing mechanisms for collaboration across states, additional CMS action is needed. In particular, CMS's efforts to create a mechanism for states to disseminate information about T-MSIS data and its comparability across states remain limited and the agency has not launched its proposed Learning Collaborative to facilitate ongoing feedback and collaboration. While progress has been made, additional actions, such as establishing mechanisms for ongoing feedback and collaboration across states, are needed to consider this recommendation implemented.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to articulate guidance to states, but has not outlined a specific plan and associated time frames for using T-MSIS data for oversight. Until CMS takes these actions, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-18-138, Nov 8, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB stated in January 2020 that it believes that the assistance it has previously provided to help agencies make their own reporting determinations fulfills the recommendation's intent. However, because we continue to identify instances where agencies had not submitted these data, we continue to believe that OMB needs to follow up with agencies that are not submitting quarterly data to find out why they are not reporting. It also needs to update its list of agencies required to report.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB has issued or contributed to guidance documents that are intended to help agencies collect and report on "Primary Place of Performance." We believe that providing specific examples of how agencies should approach challenging situations when reporting on this data element for grants would provide further clarity.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In September 2019, Treasury officials stated that they are working to formalize a process for monitoring agency submissions. This process will include (1) emailing agencies prior to submission deadlines to remind them of the approaching submission deadlines; (2) following up with agencies that do not submit required data by the submission deadline and offering technical assistance as needed; and (3) forwarding a list of non-compliant agencies to OMB. GAO will continue to monitor Treasury's efforts to establish monitoring controls to help ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, Treasury has made progress by disclosing limitations related to unreported spending, among other things. Treasury is planning a major update to the USAspending.gov website to include more information about known data quality issues. Treasury plans to make this update to the website in the coming months and has an internal target date of June 2020 for completion. When completed, this action will help users make more informed decisions about how to interpret and use the data provided on the website.
GAO-17-258, Aug 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it had updated its requirement to request 2-year budget forecasts instead of 5-year budget forecasts. In its December 2017 statement of actions, HHS stated that it was working to streamline and simplify its data collection effort as part of the annual sustainability plan. In April 2018, HHS provided a revised 2-year budget forecast template as well as related state marketplace training documentation. As of April 2020, HHS had not provided further documented evidence of its streamlined process using the 2-year budget forecast template or justification that a 5-year budget is not necessary for assessing long-term financial sustainability and state marketplace sustainability risks.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it continued to provide technical assistance such as webinars and other trainings on independent financial and programmatic audit submission requirements. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to ensure that state-based marketplaces provide required annual financial audit reports, including draft financial audit procedures, documentation of related training provided to states, and a revised HHS state officer annual review checklist emphasizing financial audit reporting. However as of April 2020, the department had not provided evidence of finalized procedures, examples of checklist usage, or of states providing annual financial audit reports. Further, HHS training documentation stated that state-based marketplaces could provide alternate financial audit reports, such as a state-wide financial audit report, in lieu of a marketplace specific report. It is not clear from the provided evidence that the department has ensured that state-based marketplaces are in compliance with financial audit reporting requirements. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes further action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it would refine its marketplace self-sustainability risk assessment process to provide greater insight into the state marketplace sustainability efforts and to identify areas where states may need assistance. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to base its risk assessments on fully defined processes. CMS provided documentation of clearly defined and measurable terms used for state marketplace budget analysis. However, HHS did not provide evidence that these defined terms were incorporated into analyses or risk assessments. As of April 2020, CMS has not provided evidence that it took steps to develop a clear categorization process or a defined response to high risks. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that though each marketplace was accountable for managing and reporting its own IT metrics in accordance with federal and state law, HHS would work with states on the improvement of their management and operations through technical assistance and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it conducted Open Enrollment Readiness Reviews to assess marketplace key performance indicators, which according to CMS officials, are similar to operational analysis reviews. However, as of October 2018, HHS had not provided evidence that the Open Enrollment Readiness Reviewed systematically and comprehensively reported on the key performance indicators or include discussion of other key elements identified in best practices for operational analysis reviews, such as how objectives could be better met, or costs could be saved. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that states were responsible for monitoring their own performance measures but HHS would continue to review IT metrics of state marketplaces in the implementation phase of their systems through technical assistance activities and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
GAO-17-553, Jul 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
GAO-17-184, Jan 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, HHS provided information describing actions it has taken to help increase the use of EHRs and electronic information exchange in post-acute care settings. These actions are important, but do not address the comprehensive planning that GAO recommended. To fully implement this recommendation, HHS should provide information to show comprehensive planning for how HHS's specific actions are expected to lead to achieving the goal of increasing the use of EHRs and electronic information exchange in post-acute settings.
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-16-656, Jul 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had collaborated through an IT technical assessment initiative, identifying four primary financial management modernization initiatives remaining from the New Core Program. In July 2020, HUD officials, including the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, provided a roadmap that defined a high-level depiction of the financial management systems anticipated in the future state. However, the department had not yet completed more detailed plans that (1) identify operations that must be performed and who must perform them and (2) explain where and how operations are to be carried out. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization. As of July 2020, the department had begun taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, HUD planned to integrate loan and property management into its current financial management shared service and had begun planning for how to modernize its budget formulation and cost accounting systems. For the budget formulation effort, HUD had developed high-level plans for the scope of the program, planned an implementation schedule, and estimated on the cost for implementation and operating and maintaining the system for two years. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In March 2017, the department reported that the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Information Officer intended to partner on future departmental financial management systems modernization efforts to fully document requirements and trace requirements to the functionality in the modernized system. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. As of July 2020, HUD was in the early phases of planning for modernization in these areas. According to officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the department intended to address this recommendation for budget formulation modernization by developing applicable plans and artifacts for managing requirements from the department's project planning and management framework. However, that effort has not yet started. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. Since 2016, HUD has revised its IT governance boards, which provide oversight of all its IT investments, including financial management initiatives, several times. While the department has not yet completed those improvement efforts, HUD updated its project planning and management framework to tailor requirements and artifacts for different program types. According to an official from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, updates to the requirements for shared services projects incorporated lessons learned from the New Core program. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. Officials from both offices have described improvements in their coordination and collaboration on efforts to plan for modernization. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions to ensure that planned improvements to governance and oversight mechanisms are effectively implemented and institutionalized.
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.
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-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-15-82, Nov 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
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-13-99, Nov 19, 2012
Phone: (202)512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress had taken a number of actions that affect the NTIS fee-based model for disseminating technical information. Specifically, for the past 5 fiscal years and in the current Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, NTIS is prohibited from charging customers for reports generated by legislative branch offices unless the agency tells the customer how an electronic copy of the report can be accessed or downloaded for free online. The act further states that, if a customer still requires such a report from NTIS, the agency should not charge more than what is needed to recover the cost of processing, reproducing, and delivering the document requested. It remains to be seen whether these requirements will be continued under the yet to be introduced House and Senate bills making appropriations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year 2021. Congress again has the opportunity to consider legislation that would ensure the assessment of the appropriateness or viability of NTIS functions.
GAO-12-256, Mar 13, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.
GAO-12-54, Feb 24, 2012
Phone: (202)512-2757
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, OMB staff reported that Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology has been developing two new products, featured in the Federal Data Strategy 2020 Action Plan, that they believe will be responsive to this recommendation when completed. They are (1) an update to Statistical Working Paper 22 on statistical disclosure limitation methodology, and (2) guidance on measuring and reporting data quality.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, OMB staff reported that Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology has been developing two new products, featured in the Federal Data Strategy 2020 Action Plan, that they believe will be responsive to this recommendation when completed. They are (1) an update to Statistical Working Paper 22 on statistical disclosure limitation methodology, and (2) guidance on measuring and reporting data quality.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff reported that because it publishes cost and burden information in Federal Register notices, PRA statements, and on RegInfo.gov, the public is able to identify discrepancies and bring them to OMB's attention. We believe that the responsibility to identify these discrepancies should belong to OMB and not the public.
GAO-10-582, Jun 21, 2010
Phone: (202)512-6870
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.