Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Inspectors general"
GAO-20-699, Sep 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-5130
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-566, Aug 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3406
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the CFO, including the formulation and financial execution of the budget, planning and performance, risk management, internal control, financial systems, and accounting. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to specify that the deputy CFO shall assist the agency CFO in the performance of each of the duties of the agency CFO. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
a. The plan should include actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making.
b. The plan should be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. (Matter for Consideration 3)
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for a government-wide 4-year financial management plan and an annual financial management status report. The plan is to address actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making. The plan is to be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the CFO of each CFO Act agency to prepare, in consultation with financial management and other appropriate experts, an agency plan to implement the 4-year financial management plan prepared by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to achieve and sustain effective financial management in the agency. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the Director of OMB to prepare comprehensive financial management performance-based metrics, which are to be used to evaluate the financial management performance of executive agencies. These metrics are to be included in the government-wide and agency-level financial management plans, and agencies' performance against the metrics are to be reported in annual financial management status reports. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to identify key financial management information needed for effective financial management decision-making. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to annually assess and separately report on the effectiveness of internal controls of the agency over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the financial statement auditors of each CFO Act agency to report on their evaluation of internal control over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
GAO-20-75, Nov 8, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-545, Jul 26, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2020, OMB officials stated that they have incorporated agency feedback for enhancing the CyberStat program into an updated concept of operations document that is currently in draft. To consider this recommendation fully implemented, OMB needs to provide us with an updated concept of operations document for the CyberStat program, and demonstrate the expansion of CyberStat review meetings to agencies that require additional assistance due to persistent information security deficiencies. As of September 2020, OMB has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, we were still waiting to receive OMB's 180-day letter detailing the actions it plans to take to address the recommendation.
GAO-19-198, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the DOD and military service Inspectors General had convened a working group to coordinate performance improvement on unmet timeliness goals. According to the IG, the working group's recommendations are being incorporated into uniform standards for reprisal investigations that are expected to be finalized in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Officer of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Air Force Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the future whistleblower case management system would incorporate design limits providing for access to information only by personnel necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. According to the IG, the system is scheduled to deploy in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that an update scheduled for the end of April 2020 would enhance access control measures in its existing applications. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Army Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Army Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
GAO-19-14, Dec 7, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) neither agreed or disagreed with the recommendation but stated that it had no comments. In January 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-400, Jun 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC is revising its practice of granting extensions when the agency provides a plausible explanation for the delay. Instead, OSC will be informing agencies at the outset of the referral that, with few exceptions, extension requests are less likely to be granted. OSC will also be communicating that failure to produce an investigative report within the statutory timeframe will result in notification of the agency's failure to the President and congressional committees under 5 U.S. C. 1213(c) (4). According to OSC, this new practice will be reflected in standard operating procedures for the OSC Disclosure Unit that the agency is currently revising.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC has incorporated explicit language in its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers that investigations may exceed the statutory timeframe. OSC has also now implemented a standard operating procedure of adhering to the 45-day timeframe for making a substantial likelihood determination under 5 U.S.C. 1213(b). According to OSC, it will be revising its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers to reflect that OSC expects to make a referral determination within 45 days.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Special Counsel convened an Effectiveness and Efficiency Working Group tasked with evaluating every unit's case process activities. The group issued recommendations in the spring of 2018, after which the Special Counsel announced a significant reorganization of OSC in the spring of 2018. Specifically, effective October 1, 2018, OSC created a new Intake Unit and merged the headquarters CEU with the Investigations and Prosecution Division (IPD). According to OSC, it continues to develop standard case processes, including procedures for prioritizing cases, obtaining favorable actions, establishing qualitative and quantitative performance expectations, and reviewing cases.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Clerk of OSC has identified and is implementing the following controls and tools needed to ensure closed case files can be tracked and located efficiently: (1) creation and utilization of file plans according to the OSC disposition scheduled for each unit (including inventory of records); (2) creation of an Archives and Records Centers for Information Sharing (ARCIS) account to manage functions related to OSC's Electronic Records Management System (ERMS), including retiring temporary records to the Federal Records Center (FRC), transmitting and tracking records requests to FRC, and transferring permanent records to the National Archives and Records Administration. According to OSC, the Clerk is further establishing policies and procedures, as well as staff training, for records retention, including but not limited to routine evaluations and assessments. OSC employs FOIA Xpress to locate open and closed cases in response to records requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
GAO-17-506, Sep 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation and stated in July 2020 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it.
GAO-17-337, Apr 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. In June 2020, we requested information on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm the actions the Navy has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. As of July 2020, the Army had drafted a memorandum that would delegate the requirements to the investigative services or program office. We will update the status of this recommendation after the Army issues the final memorandum.
GAO-16-245, Feb 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: According to BSEE documentation, the Safety and Incident Investigations Division (SIID) is working closely with the Office of Policy and Analysis and the Records, Delegations, and Directives Team to implement the requirements specified in the BSEE Directives System Manual Chapter and to convert a number of Bureau Interim Directives into Bureau Manual Chapters. In May 2018, BSEE provided the results of an internal control review it had conducted to assess compliance with the tiering process outlined in the National Investigations Handbook. In particular, the Internal Control Review recommended that BSEE (1) continue revision of its National Investigations Handbook, (2) evaluate investigation tier designation, and (3) develop additional investigative training. In July 2019, BSEE provided documentation that it had converted four Bureau Interim Directives into Bureau Manual Chapters and that, in response to the Internal Control Review, it had (1) revised its National Investigations Handbook, (2) evaluated investigative tier designation, and (3) implemented additional training. As of August 2020, BSEE leadership and SIID personnel are considering changes to improve the quality and consistency of its investigative tier designation with a planned completion date of December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: According to BSEE documentation, the BSEE Director has ordered an assessment. In the meantime, inspectors are being trained to assist with environmental oversight responsibilities as appropriate. BSEE informed us during the first quarter of fiscal year 2018 that it expected to develop a plan to address documented environmental oversight staffing needs by 2020. Officials said that the timeline was pushed out to allow time to finish policy and complete a work risk assessment. In September 2019, BSEE indicated that it had identified three corrective actions based on its evaluation of risks associated with the organizational structure of the bureau's environmental compliance program that will address this recommendation. As of August 2020, BSEE anticipates implementing these actions by the end of fiscal year 2021.
GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In February 2018 DOD issued a policy on harassment prevention and response in the armed services that defined hazing as one form of harassment, and required each military department secretary to provide a plan to implement the policy. As of October 2020, DOD stated that it had assessed that the military services had fully implemented DOD's hazing policy by September 2020. This determination was based on an assessment of military service implementation plans for DOD's harassment prevention and response policy, which includes prevention of hazing. Through ongoing work on hazing in the military, we continue to monitor the extent to which DOD has regularly monitored the extent to which the military services have implemented its hazing policy.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. As of September 2017, DOD had added questions to its survey of servicemembers that would facilitate an evaluation of hazing prevalence but had not yet conducted the evaluation. In October 2020, DOD stated that it need to conduct additional analysis on its survey data and on a hazing/bullying metric developed for DOD by the RAND Corporation, and estimated it would implement this recommendation by October 2023.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.
GAO-15-477, May 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD officials concurred with this recommendation and provided an update in May 2019, in which they stated that the office was preparing an issuance for coordination that will direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and guidance clarifying how the stages are defined. DOD officials estimated that the issuance would be completed by December 31, 2019.
GAO-14-5, Dec 3, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we determined that NMB had taken some steps to further implement key information security practices, but had not fully implemented this recommendation. We reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB continued to only partially follow the eight key information security practices in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). NMB must take other steps, such as providing risk assessment documentation of its enterprise network for fiscal year 2019. NMB officials stated that the agency plans to address several of these practices by the end of fiscal year 2020. They further noted that they hired a Chief Information Officer and planned to hire additional staff and employ contractors to aid in these efforts.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB had taken some steps to implement information privacy practices, such as designating a privacy officer. However, NMB must take additional steps, such as specifying whether a system of records notice would be developed, as required by the Office of Management and Budget.
GAO-13-174, Apr 18, 2013
Phone: (202)512-3236
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. According to information provided by OMB and PIC staff in June 2015, although OMB revised its guidance as we recommended, it did not work with the PIC to test implementation of these provisions. Instead, they told us that both PIC and OMB staff ensure agencies are implementing these provisions of their guidance when reviewing agency priority goal (APG) quarterly update submissions. However, our analyses of agencies' APG updates since that time has continued to find that implementation of these provisions is mixed. We will continue to monitor progress.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken limited actions to address this recommendation. In July 2017, OMB staff said that they planned on highlighting the requirement for congressional consultation as they updated the 2018-2019 APGs, which were first published in February 2018 and were updated quarterly. However, our periodic analyses of Performance.gov showed that neither the updated version of the site, nor the reporting templates for individual APGs, contained a space for providing a description of input from Congress. In its July 2020 guidance, OMB directed agencies to highlight congressional input, if such input was relevant to setting a specific goal, in the APG overview section of the template. We will continue to monitor progress.