Recommendation: The Director of OMB should take steps to ensure that federal agencies implement its guidance on agency adherence to E.O. 13132 requirements, particularly related to designating a federalism official. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Office of Property and Fleet Management to consistently monitor property provided to non-federal recipients within 1 year of receipt, and to ensure property is being used for its intended purpose 1 year after initial monitoring. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to resume monitoring the Economic Development Property program, including property provided to non-federal recipients. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update their annual personal property reporting requirements. DOE anticipates having this recommendation implemented by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should direct the Employment and Training Administration to take steps, such as reconciling data between Job Corps centers and the Job Corps National Office, to ensure that the entities responsible for overseeing and monitoring the Job Corps Program have accurate data on the excess property provided to non-federal recipients. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, DOL indicated in its 180-day letter that they concurred with the recommendation, and have taken steps to improve the monitoring and oversight of Job Corps Property. This includes modifying the GSAXcess approval process by elevating review of all GSAXcess requests made by Job Corps Centers to DOL's Employment Training Administration's (ETA) national office. ETA is also working with DOL's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) to develop a process for GSAXcess review that includes identifying approval levels for each category of property, identifying categories of property requiring additional review and approvals, and coordinating and streamlining access request procedures. These changes will be reflected in DOL's Office of Job Corps standard operating procedures (SOP), which is expected to be issued at the end of fiscal year 2020. DOL expects to provide training to Job Corps staff and Job Corps Centers in support of the SOP that will be provided annually. GAO will continue to monitor DOL's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Office of Property and Fleet Management to establish clear processes to oversee property programs, including excess property provided to non-federal recipients across the agency. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to update its regulations and guidance on programs that provide property to non-federal recipients to ensure regulations are current and establish a process to regularly communicate information about non-federal recipient programs to DOE program offices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update internal policies, and provide personal property information on DOE's internal informational website known as Powerpedia. DOE anticipates implementing this recommendation by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The GSA Administrator should direct the Office of Government-wide Policy to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool by updating the authorities agencies can select. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation, and has taken steps to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool (tool). GSA has added relevant authorities to the tool as recently as July 2019, and will continue to contact agencies to ensure relevant authorities are included in the tool. GSA is also evaluating technical updates to the tool to ensure that reporting agencies select an appropriate authority when reporting personal property. GSA plans to complete these actions by July 31, 2020, and inform agencies of these changes in their guidance by the end of fiscal year 2020. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The GSA Administrator should direct the Office of Government-wide Policy to document in what circumstances excess property loaned to non-federal recipients should be reported and what property GSA is reporting on behalf of agencies, for example, by updating GSA guidance. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation. GSA will better communicate with agencies to better understand the confusion of reporting on loaned excess property, as reporting requirements are in statute, regulations, and guidance. GSA also plans to review and update by July 31, 2020, relevant regulations and guidance in this area including Federal Management Regulation Bulletin B-27, "Annual Executive Agency Reports on Excess and Exchange/Sale Personal Property." GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should ensure that the information it uses to verify nonprofit status for all nongovernmental hospitals that participate in the 340B Program is reliable—for example, by requiring and reviewing the submission of official documentation hospitals must already maintain or by ensuring the reliability of the data the agency uses. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and in June 2020, reiterated that HRSA believes that the information it uses to determine nonprofit status is reliable, because hospital administrators attest to its accuracy. However, as discussed in our report, neither HRSA nor the agency that collects the data has evaluated the reliability of the data for verifying nonprofit status. Without ensuring it is using reliable information, HRSA cannot effectively determine if nongovernmental hospitals participating, or seeking to participate, in the 340B Program meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should implement a process to verify that every nongovernmental hospital that participates in the 340B Program has a contract with a state or local government as required by statute. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation and, as of June 2, 2020, did not plan to take any actions to implement the recommendation. HHS noted that requiring all covered entities to submit a state or local government contract would create a significant burden for covered entities. However, as we noted in our report, HRSA already requires hospitals to maintain copies of their state or local government contracts. Therefore, it is unclear how implementing a process to verify the existence of those contracts would represent a significant burden. Without this information, HRSA does not have reasonable assurance that nongovernmental hospitals have the statutorily required contracts to participate in the 340B Program.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should provide more specific guidance for 340B Program auditors on how to determine if nongovernmental hospitals' contracts with state and local governments require the provision of health care services to low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and in June 2020, indicated that HRSA had updated its audit guidance and procedures to more clearly specify that contracts must contain requirements for the provision of health care services to low-income individuals. However, these documents do not contain any specific guidance on how auditors are to evaluate whether contracts require these services. Without more specific guidance for auditors' review of contracts, HRSA lacks reasonable assurance that the audits are appropriately identifying deficiencies in nongovernmental hospitals' contracts with state or local governments.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should require nongovernmental hospitals participating in the 340B Program to demonstrate that they have contracts with state or local governments in effect prior to the beginning of their audits' periods of review and should apply consistent and appropriate consequences for hospitals that are unable to do so. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As noted in our report, HRSA updated its draft audit procedures for fiscal year 2020 audits in September 2019 to specify that auditors should look for effective dates that cover the entire audit period. While this is an important step, HRSA must also show that it has ceased accepting retroactive contract documentation, and has applied consistent and appropriate consequences when auditors find that nongovernmental hospitals did not have contracts in effect prior to the beginning of their audit periods. As of June 2020, HHS indicated that HRSA had not taken these actions. Allowing hospitals that are unable to demonstrate that they have contracts in place that cover their audits' periods of review to continue to participate without consequences undermines the effectiveness of HRSA's audit process and increases the risk that ineligible hospitals will receive discounts under the program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of FTA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities, such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Administrator of FEMA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau identifies metrics on the extent to which governments participating in LUCA overlap in their coverage of residents, as well as the characteristics of participants such as type of government and geographic area, and reports on such metrics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that its 2020 LUCA Assessment would identify the impacts, if any, of governments providing overlapping coverage in their submissions to the Bureau. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify metrics on submissions from governments that describe both the participating governments and extent of their overlap in coverage.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau takes steps to conduct in-office reviews of a greater share of addresses submitted by governments before the addresses are added to the Bureau's address list for potential field work. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would continue to identify improvements to address list-sharing programs so that more addresses submitted by governments are reviewed using in-office methods. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take steps that result in a greater share of addresses submitted by governments being reviewed in-office.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau, as part of the Bureau's assessment of LUCA for 2020, consults with OMB to report on the factors that led to enumeration outcomes of addresses reinstated to the Bureau's master address list by the LUCA appeals process. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would research appeals-reinstated addresses to determine the factors that led to the initial rejection of those addresses, any reasons for their reinstatement upon appeal, and the enumeration outcomes of those addresses. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to complete and report on this work.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau identifies and tracks specific costs for related address list development efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would use existing systems to identify and report the costs of individual address list update-related activities. The Bureau also indicated that it would develop the means for capturing the cost of machine-based methods of updating the address list. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify and track costs with sufficient detail to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative efforts it considers and uses to build its address list.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau improves the use of LUCA results to inform procedures of other decennial operations, such as sharing information on address update quality to inform NRFU planning or administrative records modeling. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would investigate how best to improve the flow of address data from governments into other census activities, such as research on administrative records or address canvassing. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to establish and demonstrate the use of pathways for data on address collected from governments and their quality to inform the planning of other census activities that rely on address data.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau realigns the schedule of LUCA-related programs to provide participants with more time to review addresses. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would look for opportunities to allow participants more time to review the address list for their areas, subject to the timing and design of LUCA 2030. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to ensure that governments invited to review addresses are provided sufficient time to review them.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau uses the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas to inform geographic activities such as: targeting LUCA outreach to tribal, state, and local governments; planning additional rounds of in-office address canvassing; and providing feedback to tribal, state, and local governments on gaps in their respective address data. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would give participants access to the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas so that participants could prioritize their address list review efforts. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to demonstrate how it is using its data on hard-to-count areas to improve targeting of outreach to governments, planning other address-improvement activity, and providing feedback to governments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the Director of the Census Bureau, as part of the Bureau's strategic planning process for geographic programs, reexamines LUCA in conjunction with stakeholders, other federal agencies as appropriate, and Congress to address the issues we have identified, including but not limited to:

• Identifying and assessing alternatives and describing corresponding effects on the decennial census.
• Reporting out on the assessment of alternatives, including justifications.
• Developing legislative proposals, as appropriate, for any changes needed to LUCA and address data in order to implement preferred alternatives. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would reach out to stakeholders in the Summer of 2022 to discuss reexamining LUCA and other address frame initiatives. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to carryout a reexamination with stakeholders on the issues identified in our report as well as identify and report on alternatives as well as legislative proposals as may be appropriate.

Recommendation: To strengthen the mass care response to future disasters, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct FEMA to periodically review the current structure of ESF-6 leadership roles andresponsibilities for coordinating mass care. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. The department considers this issue to be resolved because FEMA established a working group in 2018 that reports on performance metrics and corrective actions and improvement plans. As part of that mission they are establishing a reporting system for emergency support function (ESF) coordinators to provide monthly updates on implementing corrective actions and validating improvements through exercises. We agree that these actions are important parts of effectively overseeing and evaluating ESF activities and results. However, while these efforts may address the responsibilities of ESF agencies, they may overlook the overall leadership roles of ESF agencies. To fully implement this recommendation, DHS and FEMA would need to demonstrate there is a process for reviewing the structure of ESF leadership roles on a regular basis.

Recommendation: To better clarify what mass care services voluntary organizations can provide, especially for severe or overlapping hurricanes, FEMA should strengthen its guidance to state and local governments to emphasize the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities related to mass care when state and local governments develop written agreements with partner organizations. This could include creating a guidance document or memo that calls attention to the issue and brings together existing resources, such as the Multi-Agency Feeding Plan Template and training materials, in a comprehensive and accessible manner. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DHS and FEMA concurred with this recommendation. In their June 2020 update, FEMA said it would address this recommendation through the Individual Assistance Mass Care unit within the Office of Response and Recovery. The Individual Assistance Mass Care unit will conduct a strategic review of existing guidance and protocols related to the development of written agreements. FEMA will coordinate the review with state, local, territorial, and tribal governments (SLTT), regional staff, and other key stakeholders, and will identify common challenges encountered during the coordination process. FEMA will then develop recommendations based on stakeholder feedback and will prepare language accordingly for use in the next update of the Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guidance. FEMA anticipates that it will begin preparing language by March 31, 2021. When this language is complete we will close the recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure assistance reaches all survivors, FEMA should develop mechanisms for the agency and its partners to leverage local community groups, such as conducting regular outreach to communicate and share aggregate information with these groups.(Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DHS and FEMA agreed with this recommendation. In June 2020, FEMA said it plans to conduct a virtual Partnership Day meeting (to occur in increments throughout the month of July) to enable voluntary organizations to exchange information, to network and to support ongoing operations. When FEMA provides evidence that this has taken place, we will close the recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure more accurate mass care capability assessments, FEMA should require grantees to solicit capabilities information from key mass care service-delivery providers in making capability estimates and identify these providers in their submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DHS and FEMA did not concur with this recommendation. The agencies said implementing this recommendation would increase the burden on grantees and could put certain communities at a disadvantage because grantees cannot control which partners participate. In addition, DHS and FEMA said that because capabilities assessments are not limited to mass care, such a requirement may have unintended consequences for other partners. FEMA plans to continue working with the mass care community to identify the best solution, including encouraging collaboration at all levels of government. Our recommendation specifies that FEMA should require grantees to solicit information from key mass care partners and to identify these partners in their submission. We recognize that grantees cannot compel partners to participate, but they can, at a minimum, invite such partners to participate in the process. We continue to believe that grantees should be required to make an effort to include mass care providers in developing their mass care capability assessments, as this is vital for developing high quality assessments. FEMA has emphasized the importance of having an active relationship and ongoing communication with key partners before disasters strike. In its Strategic Plan, FEMA states that pre-disaster coordination and communication among partners is critical to improve response and recovery outcomes. Thus, we do not believe it would be an undue burden to reach out to such partners as part of the capability assessment process.

Recommendation: To build the emergency preparedness capabilities of grantees, FEMA should develop systematic, documented protocols to determine the conditions under which it will follow up and provide feedback to grantees about mass care capability assessments. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DHS and FEMA concur with this recommendation and will take steps to address it, although they didn't specify their plans.

Recommendation: To ensure assistance reaches all survivors, Red Cross should develop mechanisms for it and its partners to leverage local community groups, such as conducting regular outreach to communicate and regularly share aggregate information with these groups. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: American Red Cross
Status: Open

Comments: The Red Cross agreed with this recommendation. The organization noted several ongoing activities to engage such community groups and said it intends to continue expanding outreach, data-sharing, and engagement initiatives.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should (a) establish and implement a formal process to collect and monitor information on the extent to which all implemented IGSAs have resulted in financial and nonfinancial benefits and (b) document that process in Air Force IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should (a) establish and implement a process to monitor whether Navy installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs and to obtain explanations from installations on the outcome of their evaluations and (b) document that process in Navy IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation, and in March 2019 the Department of the Navy directed Commander, Navy Installations Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm any further actions the Navy has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should (a) establish and implement a process to monitor whether Marine Corps installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs and to obtain explanations from installations on the outcome of their evaluations and (b) document that process in Marine Corps IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open

Comments: The Marine Corps did not concur with this recommendation. However, in written comments, DOD stated that the Department of the Navy would implement this recommendation and that it would be applicable to both the Navy and Marine Corps. In March 2019, the Department of the Navy directed Marine Corps Installation Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Marine Corps has taken in response to this direction, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should document in Air Force IGSA policy or procedures its process for monitoring whether Air Force installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access and use the best available climate information, the Executive Office of the President should designate a federal entity to develop and periodically update a set of authoritative climate change observations and projections for use in federal decision making, which state, local, and private sector decision makers could also access to obtain the best available climate information.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help federal, state, local, and private sector decision makers access and use the best available climate information, the Executive Office of the President should designate a federal entity to create a national climate information system with defined roles for federal agencies and nonfederal entities with existing statutory authority.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should take steps to ensure that states report accurate provider-specific payment data that include accurate unique national provider identifiers (NPI).

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. Among other things, the proposed rule would require states to report supplemental payments made to individual providers; furthermore, it would require states to include the National Provider Identifier (NPI) number-a unique 10-digit identification number assigned to health care providers. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should develop a policy establishing criteria for when such payments at the provider level are economical and efficient.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would require states to demonstrate to CMS that supplemental payments to individual providers are economical and efficient and also require states to end and then seek CMS approval to renew supplemental payments every three years. GAO will monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should, once criteria are developed, develop a process for identifying and reviewing payments to individual providers in order to determine whether they are economical and efficient.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would require states to demonstrate to CMS that supplemental payments to individual providers are economical and efficient and also require states to end and then seek CMS approval to renew supplemental payments every three years. GAO will monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to provide a time frame for what constitutes "persistent over time" that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include short-term efforts as programs.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop program inventories.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant guidance.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related performance and budget information.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their program definition approach and identified programs when developing or updating their inventories.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each program contributes.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To strengthen formal collaboration efforts, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the appropriate program offices, to develop a plan to ensure that data collected on the various programs of the agencies related to affordable housing and transit are sufficient to measure the agencies' performance toward goals and outcomes established in the HUD-FTA action plan and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.

Recommendation: To strengthen formal collaboration efforts, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the appropriate program offices, to develop a plan to ensure that data collected on the various programs of the agencies related to affordable housing and transit are sufficient to measure the agencies' performance toward goals and outcomes established in the HUD-FTA action plan and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open

Comments: On November 30, 2009, we received a response from HUD stating that actions were planned or underway to address this and the other recommendation in this report. As of July 2019, we are reviewing additional documentation provided by DOT and HUD on actions they have taken.

Recommendation: To improve IRS's guidance to its examiners auditing the real-estate tax deduction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should revise the guidance to indicate that evidence of deductibility should not rely on mortgage escrow statements, Forms 1098, and cancelled checks (which can be evidence of payment), and may require more than reliance on a real-estate tax bill.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action taken. IRS had not addressed this action and had no plans to do so as of January 2020. IRS did not agree with GAO's May 2009 recommendation and the agency maintains that existing examination guidance provides examiners with sufficient information to properly examine this deduction. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, section 11042 of Public Law 115-97 caps the deduction for state and local taxes, including real estate taxes, at $10,000. In its 2009 review, GAO found that some examiners were not confirming that taxpayers were entitled to deduct real estate charges claimed, even in situations where their deductibility may have been in question. As a result, GAO maintains that examiners are continuing to rely on guidance that is inadequate to properly examine this deduction and that action should be taken to clarify the guidance.

Recommendation: To improve IRS's guidance to its examiners auditing the real-estate tax deduction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should revise the guidance to require examiners to ask taxpayers to substantiate the deductibility of the amounts claimed whenever they are examining the real-estate tax deduction and they have reason to believe that taxpayers have claimed nondeductible charges that are large, unusual, or questionable.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action taken. IRS had not addressed this action and had no plans to do so as of January 2020. IRS did not agree with GAO's May 2009 recommendation and the agency maintains that existing examination guidance provides examiners with sufficient information to properly examine this deduction. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, section 11042 of Public Law 115-97 caps the deduction for state and local taxes, including real estate taxes, at $10,000. In its 2009 review, GAO found that some examiners were not confirming that taxpayers were entitled to deduct real estate charges claimed, even in situations where their deductibility may have been in question. As a result, GAO maintains that examiners are continuing to rely on guidance that is inadequate to properly examine this deduction and that action should be taken to clarify the guidance.