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: "Mission statement"
GAO-20-323, Feb 20, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
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: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-16-414, May 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512- 5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
GAO-15-744, Sep 10, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2017, IRS supplied documentation on how it had established a fairness policy statement, which is incorporated into the Internal Revenue Manual, communicated to staff in email, and provided via a powerpoint presentation to staff. IRS also established and documented collection program objectives as part of its FY2017 Collection Program Letter. In October 2017, IRS shared additional draft documentation with GAO that would align SB/SE objectives with objectives from its FY2017 Collection Program Letter as well as other information such as performance measures. Following our assessment and request for more information, in November 2017, IRS provided a document intended to define certain collection program objectives, but it did not clearly define fairness or collection program and ACS objectives. We provided IRS feedback on the document in November 2017, January 2018, and July 2018. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its automated case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.
GAO-15-647, Jul 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of actions taken on the recommendation, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control to support the collection program mission, including fairness in case selection. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program and enterprise-wide case categorization and routing processes. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In November 2016, IRS provided documentation of risk management training for managers intended to assist them in understanding their responsibilities for identifying internal and external risks to collection program objectives. However, since objectives for the collection program and fairness were not yet clearly defined, such guidance could not be effectively incorporated into risk assessment processes. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of further actions taken, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control, including risk assessment. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.