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: Criminals
GAO-18-429, Aug 9, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Public and Indian Housing
Status: Open
Comments: HUD is in the process of revising both guidebooks. HUD officials stated that the updated guidebooks will include revisions to reflect HUD's current criminal history policies. The revised guidebooks are expected to be completed no later than December 2019.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Public and Indian Housing
Status: Open
Comments: HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing staff, including Regional Directors, reviewed the checklist and determined that no additional questions should be added as they believe the checklist currently addresses federal criminal history requirements. Therefore, they also maintain that the related checklist instructions also do no require revision.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Inspector General: Office of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: HUD OIG did not agree with this recommendation, stating that it was a management function not required in statute or regulation and would be unduly burdensome. We maintain the recommendation is valid. According to HUD OIG's standard operating procedures, they will be responsible for collecting and reporting statistics for some regional office activities. As discussed in this report, we believe the HUD OIG could obtain more comprehensive information on additional required regional activities using existing resources.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Inspector General: Office of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: HUD OIG did not agree with this recommendation, stating that its ability to determine apprehensions and program savings is limited. However, the MOU between the HUD OIG and the FBI (as of the issuance of the report) states that the HUD OIG is to share this information with the FBI. We believe our recommendation provides sufficient flexibility for the HUD OIG and the FBI to determine what information on results would be feasible to collect, and maintain that such collaboration could better position the HUD OIG and the FBI to enhance their ability to identify any areas for improvement and evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Inspector General: Office of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: HUD OIG agreed with this recommendation and would be taking steps to address it.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will continually provide apprehension statistics on a fiscal year basis. The department will also collaborate with the HUD OIG to provide any additional assistance necessary for quality information sharing.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice agreed with this recommendation and will take action to update the MOU, in collaboration with the HUD OIG.
GAO-17-66, Jan 12, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection: Office of the Commissioner: U.S. Border Patrol
Status: Open
Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation. DHS noted that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Consequence Delivery System Program Management Office (CDS PMO) uses annual recidivism rate calculations to measure annual change, which is not intended to be, or used, as a performance measure for CDS. We continue to believe that DHS should strengthen its methodology for calculating recidivism. DHS noted in its comments on our report that the recidivism rate is used as a performance measure by U.S. Border Patrol and DHS. Additionally, strengthening the recidivism rate methodology would not preclude its use for CDS as a measure of annual change, and would provide Border Patrol a more complete assessment of the rate of change in recidivism. In January 2018, CDS-PMO officials stated that the office started reporting nationwide the recidivism rates for multiple years to U.S. Border Patrol sectors for situational awareness. However, the methodology for this reported recidivism rate does not exclude aliens for who there is no record of removal. In May 2020, CDS-PMO reported that it has not taken any further steps to implement this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, DHS needs to further strengthen its recidivism rate methodology by excluding aliens for whom there is no record of removal. Further, DHS needs to demonstrate that it is using this updated methodology on a recurring basis and for CDS performance measurement purposes.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation. In May 2017, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate provided immigration enforcement and removal data on a one-time basis to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's U.S. Border Patrol. In March 2018, U.S. Border Patrol officials requested that ICE provide these data on a quarterly basis. As of July 2020, ICE stated that it had shared the data with U.S. Border Patrol on multiple occasions. To fully implement this recommendation, ICE and U.S. Border Patrol need to document and implement their plans to share the data on a recurring basis.
GAO-16-546, Jul 19, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: At the time of our report, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation but stated that it did not believe convening a forum was the most strategic use of resources because agencies were not far enough along with their data collection efforts. We disagree with OMB's assertion because 7 of the 10 data collection efforts have been in place for more than 10 years, and several have been in place for multiple decades. As of December 2019, OMB has not provided information on any new efforts to establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics.
GAO-16-516, Jun 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Justice: Bureau of Prisons
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2017, BOP reported that it developed a revised Statement of Work (SOW) for use with its RRC contractors that requires the contractors to track and report to BOP on, among other things, the number of placements into and releases from RRCs and home confinement; revocations from RRCs or home confinement; and RRC and home confinement residents that have secured full, part-time, or temporary employment. In a March 2019 update, BOP stated that it awarded nine contracts under the 2017 SOW and plans to use the data required under the SOW to conduct annual performance appraisals for RRCs after each performance period and intends to use this information in the future to track outcomes of the programs (e.g., employment, housing, individualized goals of offender). In a May 2020 update, BOP stated that that it had just received the first quarter of data from many of its RRC providers and that it continues to work with the providers to refine the data to determine if it can be utilized to develop performance measures. BOP stated that it anticipates being able to provide an update on this phase of their effort in September 2020. While the collection of this data is an important step, to fully implement this recommendation, BOP also needs to define and develop performance measures by which it can use such data to report and assess outcomes program-wide. We will continue to monitor BOP's ongoing efforts.
GAO-15-509, Jul 2, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2015, we suggested that Congress modify the Federal Credit Union Act to grant NCUA authority to examine technology service providers of credit unions. As of July 2020, Congress had not granted NCUA this authority.
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.