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: "International organizations"
GAO-20-388, May 12, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2964
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-80, Dec 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of July 2020 is still working to implement its corrective action plan.
GAO-19-600, Sep 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6881
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they would determine a reasonable time frame for completing the report and will coordinate with appropriate officials regarding a potential legislative proposal to Congress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are taking steps to modify their Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System database to improve the collection of relevant data.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are developing a plan in coordination with USAID to fill existing vacancies, and are recruiting State and USAID employees to serve on details to fill existing staffing gaps.
GAO-19-429, Jul 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and it has identified several actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. State also has identified some progress resulting from its actions. Among other actions, State reported in its January 2020 letter to GAO that it is: working with the IAEA to identify ways to better develop and implement strategic planning across the Division of Nuclear Security, potentially including through dedicated staff; conveying to IAEA that it should do more to synthesize information from donor areas of emphasis, member state requests, and the contents of Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans into a set of inputed priorities; and doing more to coordinate among the larger donors to the Nuclear Security Fund (NSF) to optimize and enhance the way the Division of Nuclear Security prioritizes and carries out its nuclear security activities funded via the NSF. State noted several positive results stemming from these actions, including: (1) an increased emphasis in IAEA's most recent Nuclear Security Report on internal coordination and a more collaborative approach within the IAEA in the implementation of its nuclear security activities, which State believes will help reduce duplication, streamline Agency activities, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and maximize the benefits to IAEA member states; and (2) participation by number of donors to the NSF in a series of informal coordination meetings with the IAEA that included discussing how the Agency views its priorities for its nuclear security activities, which State believes are more likely to result in positive outcomes than priorities negotiated at Board of Governors meetings. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to determine the extent to which these efforts lead to more concrete prioritization guidelines for IAEA's nuclear security program.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and agreed that more could be done by IAEA to define nuclear security program baselines and targets, especially on activities that are mostly or fully within the IAEA's remit. In its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that it has advocated for improved program management within the Division of Nuclear Security. State believed the advocacy is having an impact, as is evident in the most recent Nuclear Security Report, which included reference to the continued application of a results-based approach to nuclear security activities which help drive positive outcomes from Agency assistance. State also noted in its letter that it continues to pursue better performance measures during negotiations of the next IAEA Programme and Budget (for 2022-2023) and in the development of the next IAEA Nuclear Security Plan (for 2022-2025). State said that it will continue to encourage IAEA to apply program management best practices, including comprehensively establishing performance measures, documenting baselines, setting clear goals, and measuring outcomes. GAO will follow up with State officials in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and review the next IAEA Programme and Budget and the 2022-2025 Nuclear Security Plan (which should be issued in September 2021) to assess whether IAEA has improved nuclear security program performance measures, including by incorporating baselines and measurable targets.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and its January 2020 letter to GAO it indicated that it is working with the IAEA to improve its reporting. Specifically, State reported that in conjunction with its efforts to address recommendation 2, to improve nuclear security program performance measures, it has seen IAEA's Division of Nuclear Security make improvements in an effort to be more consistent and diligent about providing performance measures and reporting results to IAEA member states. In fiscal years 2020 and 2021, GAO will review available IAEA nuclear security reports and will follow up with State to clarify improvements it has observed in IAEA's nuclear security program reporting.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that the sustainability of the Division of Nuclear Security's budget remains a major area of focus. State noted that many IAEA member states maintain a position of zero real growth in IAEA's budget and are reluctant to reapportion funding to nuclear security activities from other IAEA programs. State reported that it will advocate for priority areas in IAEA budget negotiations, such as nuclear security, to gain a greater share of any agreed budget increases as an alternative to shifting funds from other programs. State noted that this remains a challenge, but that it will continue to identify options to enhance the sustainability of the IAEA's nuclear security program, including how best to also strengthen governance of the Nuclear Security Fund. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 regarding the options it has identified and pursued to improve the sustainability of the nuclear security program and its funding.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO it generally stated that it is working with IAEA and its member states to improve collaboration among nuclear security stakeholders and strengthen the Agency's central coordinating role. However, State's letter did not specify actions that State is undertaking in this regard. Instead, State's letter reiterated coordinating actions that IAEA had already been undertaking at the time of our report. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to better understand the actions, if any, it is taking or has planned to strengthen IAEA's central coordinating role, as well as any actions IAEA is taking independently to improve its coordinating role consistent with key practices for effective collaboration.
GAO-19-224, Mar 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and stated that, as the report details, the United States has achieved significant successes increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations. According to State officials, the five peacekeeping principles provide a framework for honest, strategic reviews of peacekeeping operations in order to continue working to ensure that the UN is performing at its highest level in-country, and that the United States and United States taxpayers are receiving the best value for our financial contributions. U.S. leadership and effective collaboration within the UN Security Council has led to smart reductions of over $800 million in the UN peacekeeping budget since July 2016. In response to analysis of conditions on the ground, State has worked with the UN to reconfigure missions in Haiti and Darfur, bolstered the mission in the Central African Republic, made the mission in Lebanon more relevant to the challenges to peace presented by Hizballah, closed the mission in Cote d'Ivoire, and more. The United States will continue to engage in close interagency cooperation, as well as strong advocacy within the UN Security Council to continue improving UN peacekeeping. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, noting that the report correctly states that there is a need for better financial information related to UN peacekeeping operations. While the UN Secretariat provides a large volume of financial information to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, that information does not correlate well with changes that the Security Council makes to specific peacekeeping mandates. Instead, the financial information represents the totality of resources that the UN Secretariat estimates needing to accomplish a given peacekeeping mission's overall mandate. Achieving the desired level of detail will require changes to UN financial management practices and reporting to the Fifth Committee. The United States will work to advance these changes, which may require adoption through a resolution by the UN General Assembly. In the meantime and in the absence of that structural change, the United States will continue to closely scrutinize all proposed UN peacekeeping budgets to ensure to the extent possible that approved resource levels are realistic and afford missions the ability to implement their mandates, based in part on historical forecasting and expenditure patterns. With the implementation of the UN reform agenda and the expected and related UN cultural shift to one that is results based in 2019 and beyond, the United States will continue to advocate for greater transparency and accountability in the use of peacekeeping resources. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, noting that the United States has been a leader on the UN Security Council in order to create a "culture of performance" in UN peacekeeping. The United States drafted and achieved Security Council approval of resolution 2436 in September 2018, the first-ever resolution focused on improving the performance of UN peacekeeping, and implementing a system of accountability. This resolution calls for a timely and transparent reporting process for performance failures, real accountability measures for when these failures occur, and the application of objective criteria - data, not politics - to match the right police and troops with the right peacekeeping roles. The United States will continue to work with the UN Secretary-General, the Security Council, General Assembly, UN Secretariat, as well as troop- and police-contributing countries in order to ensure effective implementation of resolution 2436 going forward. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
GAO-19-116, Oct 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-18-205, Mar 29, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Status: Open
Comments: In the 60-day letter, dated June 28, 2018, ONDCP officials noted a number of federal initiatives underway to evaluate the timeliness, accuracy, and accessibility of overdose data. For example, ONDCP discussed its participation in a new Interagency Working Group led by the National Security Council to consider the implementation of overdose tracking and analytic capability, such as the expansion of ODMAP, as well as evaluating the appropriate federal role to engage in this initiative. In March 2019, ONDCP reported that it had suspended its ODMAP working group in the summer of 2018, after determining that this effort would be more effective for the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to work together through the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program Initiative. Nevertheless, as of April 2019, ONDCP officials reported that they continue to provide grant funding and training and technical assistance towards the expansion and use of ODMAP by state and local jurisdictions. Further, ONDCP reported supporting other federal data initiatives, such as providing funding to develop software for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Data that could better read narrative fields in death certificates to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the data. While ONDCP's efforts are directed towards supporting and improving existing data sources, the recommendation asks ONDCP to lead a review which it has not done. Further, ONDCP's initiatives to date have not addressed issues raised in our report related to balancing law enforcement's access to restricted health data while protecting patient privacy. We will continue to monitor ONDCP's efforts towards implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Status: Open
Comments: In the 60-day letter, dated June 28, 2018, ONDCP officials stated that they had engaged with leaders from HIDTA participating in the Heroin Response Strategy to develop performance measures. According to ONDCP, as of early May 2018, eleven performance measures had been established--nine mandatory measures and two optional measures--and four of these measures constitute outcome-oriented measures. The June letter also noted that the HIDTA Performance Management Process database was being updated to reflect the new measures and ONDCP expected the system to be fully operational by the end of September 2018. In March 2019, ONDCP reported that, throughout the summer of 2018, it had revisited the performance measures it had developed and settled on ten revised performance measures (eight mandatory measures and two optional measures) for the newly branded Opioid Response Strategy (formerly known as the Heroin Response Strategy). According to ONDCP, these measures were implemented in HIDTA's Performance Management Process as of February 1, 2019. We will continue to coordinate with ONDCP to obtain documentation of these new measures. Once we obtain them, we will review and work toward closing the recommendation, as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Justice: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its 60 Day-letter, dated June 26, 2018, officials from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) noted the output metrics and statistics that OCDETF is tracking as part of its National Heroin Initiative. For example, the letter states that OCDETF will track statistics on opioid overdose deaths, however it is unclear how this tracking effort is being incorporated into the National Heroin Initiative. While our report noted that statistics on overdose deaths have been used as outcome-oriented measures by agencies like the Office of National Drug Control Policy to assess its efforts, it is unclear how OCDETF is using these statistics to assess its performance and inform its efforts under the National Heroin Initiative. In October 2018, OCDETFs National Heroin Initiative Coordinator told us that the OCDETF Regional Directors were in the process of establishing and tracking region-specific metrics, such as local data on drug overdoses. In January 2020, we reached out to OCEDTF officials for an update, and they did not have any further information to provide. In August 2020, OCDETF officials told us that the National Heroin Initiative had evolved and they are no longer positioned to collect and report on drug overdoses as a performance measure for the initiative. However, officials stated that the initiative is measuring the number of OCDETF cases that are produced that result in the disruption or dismantlement of criminal networks involved in heroin and opioid trafficking. We asked OCDETF to provide documentation of the current state of the initiative and its related goals and performance measures. Once received, we will review and follow-up with OCDETF, if needed, to work towards the closure of the recommendation as implemented.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its 60 Day-letter, dated June 26, 2018, DOJ officials reported a number of output measures, such as conviction rates, that they will use to assess the effectiveness of the department's efforts to respond to the opioid epidemic. However, it is unclear how, if all, these measures have been incorporated into the department-wide strategy or if additional outcome-oriented metrics are being developed. In October 2018, DOJ officials reported that while they have not updated the strategy, then-Attorney General Sessions had issued a memo to the U.S. Attorneys that communicated some goals for their efforts, such as reductions in overdose deaths, and called for the U.S. Attorneys Office's Regional Opioid Coordinators to develop metrics specific to their regions. In October 2019, DOJ officials reported that the department is currently working on finalizing its Annual Priority Goals and related performance measures with respect to opioids, however they could not provide additional details nor a timeline for when these efforts are to be completed. We reached out in January 2020 to receive additional details and the Department did not have any further information to provide. We will continue to coordinate with DOJ to learn more about these efforts and when officials expect them to be implemented.
Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its 60-Day Letter, dated June 26, 2018, DEA officials noted the steps they had taken to develop performance metrics for its enforcement and diversion control activities under the 360 Strategy and reported that DEA had implemented outcome-oriented performance metrics for the 360 Strategy's community engagement activities for fiscal year 2019. Further, DEA officials noted applying DEA's Threat Enforcement Planning Process (TEPP) specifically to the 360 Strategy to develop outcome-oriented metrics. Further, according to DEA officials, the TEPP includes an impact report that assesses the outcomes of the activities undertaken under 360. In October 2018, DEA told us that TEPP was still in development and they did not give a date for projected completion. In January 2020, we reached out to DEA officials for an update, and they did not have any further information to provide. We will continue to follow up with DEA officials on their progress.
GAO-18-219, Dec 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with our recommendation and said that they will implement it, but has not provided any update on their efforts to implement the recommendation as of August 2019.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with our recommendation and said that they will implement it, but has not provided any update on their efforts to implement the recommendation as of August 2019.
GAO-18-136, Dec 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3149
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Department of State concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of January 2020, State reported that its Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services and Bureau of Administration is expected to complete analysis in 2020 with an associated action plan to address the issues encountered by State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and other bureaus understanding the importance of timely, accurate, complete, and quality data being reported to Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation and USASpending.gov. State also provided GAO with an overview of its newly established processes in its accounting system to improve data reliability, including ensuring that current and future transactions would maintain coding integrity. State has taken a number of steps to identify and address factors that affect the reliability of its democracy assistance data, such as miscoded data. However, State needs to provide information on steps taken to identify and address other factors, in particular missing data, which affect the reliability of its democracy assistance data. When we confirm what further actions State has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Department of State concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. In January 2020, State reported taking actions to implement the recommendation and we have requested documentation of these actions. In March 2019, Department of State reported that democracy assistance data for all bureaus, including the Bureaus of European and Eurasian Affair (EUR) and South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), are being tracked and its quality is being improved through the Department's Foreign Assistance Data Review (FADR) process, an ongoing process chartered in September 2014 to understand and document the Department's challenges with capturing all foreign assistance activities from budget planning and allocation through obligation and disbursement in multiple State-owned budget, financial, and program management systems. State reported that through the FADR process, the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F) has been working with the Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services (CGFS), the Bureau of Administration (A), and bureaus that administer Foreign Assistance to better capture transaction data for all types of foreign assistance-including democracy, human rights, and governance data. State also reported that 13 U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Sections in EUR that receive assistance funding to carry out democracy programs and all 11 posts in SCA are recording their assistance funding awards in the centralized State Assistance Management System (SAMS), which is one of the Department's financial management systems that is used for reporting foreign assistance transactions to ForeignAssistance.gov.
GAO-18-128, Dec 8, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1816
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD's annual program and budget review process, but adding that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds. We have since determined that the Department of the Army has estimated sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects, and plans to incorporate those costs into the out-year cost projections in the next budget submission. As of August 2020 the Air Force had not taken steps to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-168, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8612
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2017 we reported that the United States had revised its approach to statistical reporting to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about covered federal government procurement from an "award values" methodology to an actual "cumulative obligations" approach in October 2015. The "cumulative obligations" methodology resulted in a more accurate measure of covered federal procurement, but it introduced a 6-year delay in reporting. We found this reporting delay inconsistent with the 2014 WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) requirement of reporting within 2 years of the end of the reporting period. We recommended that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should, with appropriate experts in Commerce, Office of Management and Budget, and General Services Administration, improve the U.S. methodology for providing covered federal government procurement statistics to the WTO to ensure both accurate and more timely reporting, consistent with GPA requirements--for example, by providing preliminary estimates and updated values of covered federal procurement or by using an alternative methodology that bases measures of covered government procurement on actual annual obligations, if USTR determines that such an approach is consistent with WTO obligations. Following the issuance of our report, in December 2017 USTR reported that they had worked with other agencies to improve their methods. While they decided to continue to report statistics using the "cumulative obligations" methodology they decided to also report "partially reported" (preliminary) statistics to improve the timeliness of U.S. reporting. This preliminary data was to be based on the same data used in the "cumulative obligations" methodology but can be submitted within two years of the end of the reporting period and therefore comply with GPA statistical reporting obligations. USTR submitted preliminary statistics for FY 2015 on November 15, 2017; for FY 2016 on October 31, 2018; and for FY 2017 on October 29, 2019. USTR will later update these statistics to reflect the "final" total value in 2021. GAO will continue to monitor this recommendation until that time.
GAO-17-29, Nov 3, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD did not concur with our recommendation. DOD agreed that many components in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide are broadly applicable in the decision process leading up to a military construction budget request. However, DOD further stated that once military construction funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress, the department transitions to a project management mode, and it would be a waste of resources to continue to generate cost estimates once they have transitioned to managing project execution using actual cost data. However, as we note in the report, DOD guidance for estimating construction costs, DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05, states that in the MILCON program, construction cost estimates are prepared throughout the planning, design, and construction phases of a construction project to account for the refinement of the project?s design and requirements. The final estimate should document the department?s assessment of the program's most probable cost and ensure that enough funds are available to execute it. As of October 2016, the military construction funds had not been authorized by Congress for the third phase of the JIAC construction project. According to DOD officials, construction is not scheduled to begin until fall of 2017, and the contract has not yet been awarded. Further, the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide states that regardless of whether changes to the program result from a major contract modification or an overtarget budget, the cost estimate should be regularly updated to reflect all changes. This is also a requirement outlined in OMB's Capital Programming Guide. The purpose of updating the cost estimate is to check its accuracy, defend the estimate over time, and archive cost and technical data for use in future estimates. After the internal agency and congressional budgets are prepared and submitted, it is imperative that cost estimators continue to monitor the program to determine whether the preliminary information and assumptions remain relevant and accurate. Keeping the estimate updated gives decision makers accurate information for assessing alternative decisions. Cost estimates must also be updated whenever requirements change, and the results should be reconciled and recorded against the old estimate baseline. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOD's implementation of our recommendation to update future JIAC cost estimates using the best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide would assist in ensuring that decision makers have complete and reliable information about costs associated with the JIAC consolidation and as the third phase of the JIAC project is authorized. Implementing our recommendation would also ensure that DOD develops a reliable historical record for the cost of the JIAC that can be used to estimate other similar projects in the future. As of June 2017, the agency had not taken any action to implement this recommendation. As of July 2018, a senior DOD official said that DOD is developing a new analysis of alternatives (AOA) for JIAC consolidation and will use, as appropriate, our AOA best practices. Those best practices include several focused on cost estimation. We have requested information on the extent to which the AOA team will use best practices for cost estimating to update the JIAC consolidation cost estimate. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. As of September 2019, a senior DOD official said that DOD's prior non-concur with our recommendation is still valid for the reasons mentioned above.
GAO-14-422, Jun 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-9610
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2014, the Executive Office of the President issued the United States Counter Piracy and Maritime Security Action Plan, which includes an annex specific to activities in and around the Gulf of Guinea. While the plan outlines some of the planned indicators of effectiveness for activities in and around the Gulf of Guinea, the extent to which the agencies have assessed or plan to assess costs and benefits are not explicitly addressed. The plan states that the Counter Piracy Steering Group will coordinate, implement, and monitor the objectives outlined in the plan and will assess methods and agency activities to reduce risk and protect the maritime industry from acts of piracy and related maritime crime. The plan identifies an increase in investigating and prosecuting cases and a reduction in the trend of piracy and related maritime crime as tangible indicators of successful implementation of the plan. However, GAO's past work on piracy off the Horn of Africa recommended that, as part of a strategic approach, agencies (1) identify the costs of U.S. counterpiracy efforts including operational, support, and personnel costs; and (2) assess the benefits, and effectiveness of U.S. counterpiracy activities. The 2014 plan and its Gulf of Guinea annex do not include a discussion of these elements of a strategic approach. In August 2018, officials from the State Department noted that the Action Plan has not been updated because the drafting of the U.S. National Strategy for Maritime Security-which was being led by the National Security Council staff and would have addressed the Action Plan-was indefinitely suspended in June 2018. As of September 2019, neither the Strategy nor the Action plan have been updated. Including these elements of a strategic approach in the plan can help assess the effectiveness of current efforts, prioritize future efforts, and leverage resources. GAO will continue to monitor progress in this area.