https://www.gao.gov Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:30:23 -0400 GAO /images/gao_logo_rss.gif https://www.gao.gov/ Feed provided by GAO. Click to visit. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-21-72 What GAO Found In response to the Department of Labor's Home Care Rule—which extended Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime protections to more home care workers—some states made changes in their Medicaid programs, according to studies and GAO interviews with stakeholders and selected state officials. Many stakeholders said the rule led some states to limit home care workers' hours in their Medicaid programs to avoid overtime costs. For example, in Oregon, newly hired home care workers provided through Medicaid were generally limited to 40 hours per week, according to state documentation. Some states also budgeted additional funds for overtime pay. In addition, according to a few stakeholder groups, some states changed service delivery in their Medicaid programs, for example, by discontinuing services such as live-in care. In contrast, several stakeholders said some states did not make any major changes to their Medicaid programs' home care services. Provider agencies, workers, and consumers experienced changes after the Home Care Rule took effect. Specifically, some provider agencies restricted workers' hours to limit overtime costs, though this can result in the need to hire more workers, leading to increased costs of recruiting, training, and scheduling, according to several stakeholders. GAO's analysis of national survey data found that home care workers, when compared to occupations with similar education and training requirements, were more likely to work full-time but did not earn significantly higher earnings following the Home Care Rule (see figure). Many stakeholders GAO spoke with described ongoing challenges consumers face in obtaining home care services, such as difficulty finding workers to hire. Estimated Median Weekly Earnings of Employed Workers, 2010 through 2019 Note: The margins of error at the 95 percent confidence level are within plus or minus 7.2 percent of the estimate itself. Why GAO Did This Study Employment in home care is projected to grow nearly 40 percent over the next decade to meet demand from an increasing population of older adults and people with disabilities. Home care workers help those who need assistance with activities of daily living such as dressing, eating, or bathing. State Medicaid programs may allow home care for eligible individuals as an alternative to institutional care. The Department of Labor's (DOL) Home Care Rule, which went into effect in 2015, extended FLSA protections to more home care workers. GAO was asked to review the implementation and effects of the Home Care Rule. This report examines what is known about (1) changes states made to their Medicaid programs in response to the Home Care Rule; and (2) the Home Care Rule's effect on home care provider agencies, workers, and consumers. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed 2010 through 2019 national survey data on workers' hours and wages; interviewed stakeholders from 15 organizations that represent the different groups affected, DOL officials, and home care program officials from three states selected based on variation in their Medicaid programs and minimum wage levels; and reviewed studies on state strategies to implement the Home Care Rule. For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-21-31 What GAO Found The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) uses a variety of sources to assess the user experience with USAJOBS, the central website for posting federal job openings. GAO found that OPM's assessments generally track key measures in accordance with selected government-wide guidance. Specifically, OPM collects data on most of the website performance measures recommended by selected guidance from Digital.gov, including the number of times pages were viewed, the percentage of users who use the USAJOBS search box, and overall customer experience. Additionally, consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OPM surveys USAJOBS users about their experiences with the site. OPM also assesses user experience through usability testing, focus groups, and analysis of data on questions submitted to the USAJOBS help desk. Through these assessments, OPM found variations in user experience across the job search and application process, including variations in how people find job announcements and how long it takes them to complete job applications. Since the agency's redesign of USAJOBS in 2016, OPM has taken a number of actions in an effort to address feedback from these assessments and improve the USAJOBS user experience. For example, in 2017, OPM created a set of categories, called Hiring Paths, that describe who is eligible to apply for specific federal jobs and guide job seekers to positions for which they are eligible. Other OPM actions taken from 2016 to 2020 include implementing a new process for logging in to the system to improve website security; updating job search filters and adding a keyword autocomplete function, which suggests search terms as a job seeker types in the search box; revising its job announcement template for hiring agencies to help eliminate duplicative language, increase clarity, and avoid jargon; adding guidance to help job seekers complete federal applications and understand federal hiring authorities; and highlighting jobs related to COVID-19 response. OPM continues to update and refine these efforts. OPM also expects to take a number of additional actions intended to help enhance the USAJOBS website. For example, according to OPM officials, in early fiscal year 2021 they expect to add a “job status” indicator for each job announcement posted on USAJOBS. The job status indicator would provide information such as the number of applicants and when the job has been filled. According to OPM, this would improve transparency and accountability and also provide applicants with updates at each stage of the hiring process. GAO provided a draft of this report to OPM for review and comment. OPM stated that it did not have comments. Why GAO Did This Study The USAJOBS website, which is managed by OPM, is the entry point to the federal hiring process for most agencies. It facilitates hiring of new employees as well as the movement of talent across government through merit-based promotions and transfers. OPM uses USAJOBS to help achieve the agency's mission to recruit and retain a world-class government workforce. OPM is responsible for ensuring the usability of USAJOBS and collecting feedback on the user experience. Hiring agencies are responsible for the content of job opportunity announcements. Report language accompanying the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2020, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 included provisions for GAO to review the user experience on USAJOBS. This report examines (1) the extent to which OPM assesses the user experience with USAJOBS and the results of OPM's assessments; and (2) actions OPM has taken to improve the user experience with USAJOBS. GAO reviewed OPM data and documentation, interviewed OPM officials, and compared OPM's assessments of user experience to OMB guidance for federal service providers and selected guidance from Digital.gov on performance measures for federal websites. For more information, contact Michelle B. Rosenberg at (202) 512-6806 or rosenbergm@gao.gov. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-532 What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) uses term and temporary appointments to hire personnel to non-permanent positions that have uncertain funding or workload. During fiscal years 2016 through 2019, DOD increased term personnel by 40 percent and decreased temporary personnel by 3 percent, according to GAO analysis. Number of DOD Term and Temporary Personnel, Fiscal Years 2016—2019 According to GAO analysis of DOD data, during fiscal years 2016 through 2019: Approximately 35 percent of DOD term and temporary personnel were converted to permanent civilian positions within the federal government. The Army employed 72 percent of DOD's term and temporary personnel. Two Army organizations—Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—employed 32 percent of DOD's term and temporary personnel. This large use was due to increases in ground combat equipment returning from overseas operations needing to be repaired at the Army depots, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work to support disaster relief, according to DOD officials. DOD modified the procedures for making term appointments in June 2017 and August 2018, and temporary appointments in June 2017. These modifications extended the duration limit for term appointments from 4 years to 8 years, with further extensions considered on a case-by-case basis; allowed an option for certain term personnel to be non-competitively converted to permanent positions; and extended the duration limit for temporary appointments from 2 years to 3 years. However, DOD did not assess employee perceptions of the 2017 modifications and report the results of the assessment to Congress and GAO, as required by statute. In October 2019, DOD officials told GAO that they mistakenly believed Congress had waived this requirement, and that they plan to complete the assessment and report to Congress and GAO. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD established a timeframe of May 2021 for completing a survey to assess employee perceptions. This is a positive step, but it will be important for DOD to provide the results of the assessment to Congress and GAO. Why GAO Did This Study DOD employs term and temporary personnel as a part of its overall civilian workforce. Recently, DOD extended the maximum duration of term appointments to 8 years with further extensions considered on a case-by-case basis, and temporary appointments to 3 years. House Report 116-120 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's use of term and temporary hiring authorities. GAO's report (1) identifies changes in the number of DOD term and temporary personnel from fiscal years 2016 through 2019, and (2) assesses the extent to which DOD modified term and temporary appointments and completed and submitted a statutorily required report assessing those modifications. GAO analyzed DOD personnel data from fiscal years 2016 through 2019 to identify any changes, DOD memoranda modifying term and temporary appointments, and relevant statutes; and interviewed DOD and Office of Personnel Management officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOD report the results of the assessment of employee perceptions of modifications to term and temporary appointments to Congress and GAO. DOD concurred with the recommendation. For more information, contact Elizabeth Field at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-592 What GAO Found From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, veterans left federal government jobs at a higher rate than non-veterans, according to GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data. After controlling for key demographic and employment factors, GAO estimated that on average, 6.7 percent of veterans left the federal government compared to 5 percent of similar non-veterans. While veterans primarily left to retire, veterans resigned from federal service at 1.6 times the rate of similar non-veterans. GAO also estimated that 18.7 percent of veterans resigned within their first 5 years of federal service compared to 11.1 percent of similar non-veterans. Each of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies experienced higher rates of attrition among veteran employees than similar non-veteran employees. GAO identified six workplace factors associated with veterans' intentions to leave federal service. These factors—or drivers of retention—are based on an analysis of data from the OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (OPM FEVS), a tool for collecting employees' perceptions of their federal work experiences. Key Workplace Factors Associated with Veterans Considering Leaving Federal Service More than half of both veterans and non-veterans reported being satisfied with five of the six factors. More than half of both veterans and non-veterans reported not being satisfied with opportunities for advancement at their agencies. Overall we found that veterans were slightly less satisfied with these factors than non-veterans, which could in part explain the higher attrition rates for veterans. Improvements in employee satisfaction in these areas may lead to higher retention rates. Performing analyses similar to those in this report could help agencies identify and strengthen strategies for improving veteran retention. However, challenges exist for agencies using OPM FEVS data on their own to identify drivers of retention among their workforces. OPM could help agencies with these analyses so they could use data to address veteran retention issues and other workforce challenges. Why GAO Did This Study Approximately 200,000 servicemembers transition from military service to civilian life each year, according to the Department of Defense. A 2009 executive order created a government-wide initiative to increase veteran federal employment. While veteran hiring has increased since 2009, OPM has raised concerns about retention and job satisfaction of newly hired veterans. GAO was asked to analyze veteran federal employment data. This report analyzes (1) recent trends in attrition for veterans and non-veterans, and (2) key factors that may affect a veteran employee's decision to leave federal employment. GAO conducted a statistical analysis comparing attrition for veterans and similar non-veterans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 (the most current data available). GAO conducted a literature review to identify potential drivers of retention and used regression methods to analyze OPM FEVS data to identify key drivers for veterans and non-veterans. GAO also interviewed OPM officials and veteran service organizations. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that OPM assist the 24 CFO Act agencies by using OPM FEVS data to analyze the key drivers of veterans' retention. OPM partially concurred with the recommendation because of concerns about its scope and, in response, we modified it. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao.gov. Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-416 What GAO Found The 45 federal programs that provided career assistance to military families were administered by 11 agencies and frequently provided similar services to similar populations, based on GAO's analysis of survey data; however, the programs reported coordinating in various ways to manage overlap and fragmentation. All 11 agencies administered programs for veterans and seven agencies also administered programs for servicemembers (see table below). These programs offered similar services, such as 25 programs that offered educational counseling and 22 programs that offered employment counseling. Coordination efforts included co-located services, participant referrals, and interagency agreements to share information. Number of Career Assistance Programs for Military Families by Federal Agency Administering, Fiscal Year 2017 Population served         DOD     VA    SBA     DHS     Other    Total programs Servicemembers 10 9 5 3 3 30 Veterans 4 12 5 4 9 34 Spouses 4 7 4 3 1 19 Dependents 2 7 3 2 2 16 Source: GAO analysis of survey data reported by administering agencies. | GAO-20-416 Note: Programs may serve more than one population type: servicemembers, veterans, spouses, and dependents. DOD = Department of Defense, VA = Department of Veterans Affairs, SBA = Small Business Administration, DHS = Department of Homeland Security: Coast Guard, Other = Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor, and State, and Office of Personnel Management. Agencies varied in the extent to which they assessed the effectiveness of their programs. Eight of 45 programs reported having no goals that define program achievements. Also, while the majority of programs reported having either tracked outcomes or conducted recent evaluations, nine of 45 programs reported taking neither step. According to agency officials, these programs had not assessed outcomes for various reasons, such as that the program was relatively small, not statutorily required to set performance goals, or lacked a data collection system to track outcomes. However, by establishing a system to define goals and assess outcomes—leading practices for monitoring program performance—agencies are better able to demonstrate whether programs are achieving their intended results and ensure resources are being appropriately targeted to provide career assistance to military families. Why GAO Did This Study Roughly 250,000 servicemembers transition from military to civilian life every year, and 45 programs across the federal government facilitate their civilian employment, according to a previous GAO survey. These programs provide military families—servicemembers, veterans, spouses, and dependents—with a range of career assistance in the form of education, employment, and self-employment services. The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to assess some of these benefits and programs. This report examines (1) the extent to which programs provided similar services to similar populations and how agencies coordinate to manage any overlap and fragmentation, and (2) agency efforts to assess program effectiveness. GAO analyzed responses to its 2018 survey of federal agency officials. The survey was administered during previous work to develop a program inventory. GAO also categorized programs by the populations served and services provided. What GAO Recommends GAO makes three recommendations for agencies to develop performance goals and assess program outcomes. The agencies generally agreed with GAO's recommendations, but DHS did not. GAO maintains that developing performance goals and outcome measures would help DHS make resource determinations and achieve program purposes. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 09 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-441 What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses a four-phase process to enforce section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits imports produced with forced labor, including seafood. CBP's Forced Labor Division, established in 2018, largely carries out this process. In phase 1, CBP assesses leads when deciding to initiate a case involving potential forced labor. In phase 2, CBP investigates cases using a variety of information to determine whether evidentiary standards have been met. In phase 3, CBP reviews information for legal sufficiency and, in phase 4, may take action at a port of entry to detain imports in violation by issuing a withhold release order. Between 2016 and March 2020, CBP issued one order for seafood, prohibiting tuna shipments from a specific fishing vessel from entering U.S. commerce. Imported Goods Await Inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at a Port of Entry CBP uses information from external sources to help enforce section 307 for seafood imports but may miss opportunities to obtain key information from stakeholders. CBP officials said they use media reports and information from federal agencies and stakeholders to develop forced labor cases. For example, CBP initiated the case that resulted in the seafood order based partly on media reports and investigated it using vessel data from the Department of Commerce. CBP officials said that stakeholders such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) often have firsthand accounts of forced labor—valuable information for investigations. However, most stakeholders told GAO that they do not have a clear understanding of the information CBP needs to investigate seafood cases because CBP has not communicated such information. For example, CBP's website provides general information about what individuals can submit if forced labor is suspected but does not provide specific types of information that could be useful. With better communication to stakeholders about the types of information it needs to develop forced labor cases, CBP may be able to improve its enforcement efforts. Why GAO Did This Study The United States, which relies on imports for most of the seafood it consumes, imported about $40 billion in fishery products in 2018. Seafood imports often involve complex supply chains, which may include forced labor. A 2017 United Nations report estimated that there are 24.9 million people in forced labor around the world, 12 percent of whom work in the agriculture and fishing sectors. Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 2016, prohibits the importation of goods, including seafood, produced or manufactured, wholly or in part, in any foreign country by forced labor, among other things. GAO was asked to review CBP's enforcement of section 307. This report examines (1) the process CBP uses to enforce section 307 for seafood imports and the results of its civil enforcement actions; and (2) the external sources of information CBP uses to help carry out enforcement of section 307 for seafood imports and stakeholder perspectives on CBP's communication of its information needs. GAO reviewed laws and CBP documents pertaining to section 307 enforcement and interviewed officials from CBP, other federal agencies, and 18 NGO stakeholders. GAO selected NGOs with various goals and missions related to seafood and forced labor. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that CBP better communicate to stakeholders the types of information stakeholders could collect and submit to CBP to help the agency initiate and investigate forced labor cases related to seafood and, as appropriate, other goods. CBP agreed with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov or Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-384 What GAO Found Approximately 143,600 persons with disabilities were hired during 2011 through 2015—plus an additional 79,600 hires in 2016 and 2017—across the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, exceeding the stated goal of 100,000 by 2015. The Federal Government Generally Increased Hiring of Persons with Disabilities, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2017 About 39 percent of individuals with disabilities hired during 2011 through 2017 stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years. Of the total individuals without disabilities hired during that same time period, approximately 43 percent stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years. Although targeted data tracking and analyses could help pinpoint root causes contributing to departure rates, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) does not track or report retention data on disabled employees. Doing so, and making such data available to agencies would facilitate more comprehensive analyses of the retention of employees with disabilities and identify needed improvements. Officials at three agencies GAO examined—Department of Justice (DOJ), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)—used various practices to increase hiring, such as training staff on Schedule A—a commonly used hiring authority to employ individuals with disabilities. However, the agencies neither assess the impact of training nor how it relates to contributing to performance goals of increasing the number of disabled hires. Agencies are expected to track performance related to providing reasonable accommodations. The selected agencies reported having processes in place for receiving reasonable accommodations requests, but only SSA has procedures for obtaining feedback from employees after an accommodation is provided. Without such feedback, DOJ and SBA are limited in their ability to assess the continued effectiveness of reasonable accommodations provided to employees. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies are required to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of federal employment. GAO was asked to examine agencies' efforts to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities. Among other objectives, this report examines: (1) the extent to which agencies met the 2010 federal goal to hire an additional 100,000 individuals with disabilities by 2015, and the retention rates of those employees between 2011 and 2017; and (2) practices selected agencies used to increase hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities. GAO analyzed data and documents from OPM and interviewed agency officials. GAO interviewed officials from DOJ, SBA, and SSA about their efforts to enhance employment opportunities for disabled persons. GAO selected these three agencies because they represent a range of agency size and relatively high or low percentages of total employees with disabilities. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 6 recommendations: OPM should track and report retention data; DOJ, SBA, and SSA should assess training impacts; and DOJ and SBA should obtain employee feedback on reasonable accommodations. OPM and SSA concurred with GAO's recommendations; SBA concurred with one and partially concurred with one recommendation; DOJ did not agree or disagree with the recommendations. GAO continues to believe all recommendations are warranted. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov. Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-337 What GAO Found Workforce officials GAO interviewed in four of the 10 states receiving targeted Department of Labor (DOL) grants as of March 2019 said they were using Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding to help meet the unique needs of those affected by substance use disorder (SUD). These officials, who said they had limited experience serving those affected by SUD, worked with required organizational partners and hired specialists to assist job seekers and to provide intensive job readiness services. However, these efforts are relatively new and outcomes are not yet known. Workforce officials GAO interviewed in two selected states without targeted grants said they had viewed SUD primarily as a public health issue, but had recently taken some steps to address it. For example, one state added a workforce subcommittee to an existing opioid task force. State and local workforce officials in all six states identified a range of challenges they face in addressing the needs of SUD-affected job seekers. For example, criminal history or a lack of transportation may make it difficult for these job seekers to obtain and maintain employment. Officials said another challenge is finding employers who are willing to hire those in recovery. They stated that employers are concerned about the risks to their businesses, such as potential employee relapse and possible negative reaction from customers. Officials were seeking more information and assistance to help address such concerns. Criminal Histories May Deter Potential Employers from Hiring Those in Recovery DOL officials said they support SUD-affected communities mainly by providing information to states that apply for and receive targeted grants. However, officials in two selected states expressed uncertainty about DOL's expectations of states in serving the needs of SUD-affected job seekers and potential employers. Officials in another state said they were unclear on whether they could use non-targeted funds to continue targeted grant activities. GAO's review of related DOL guidance found that it does not provide specific information on expectations of states or the use of WIOA funds outside of targeted grants to address this issue. Further, while DOL has disseminated some information on serving job seekers with SUD (such as in quarterly calls with grant recipients), it does not plan to share information that grantees submit to the agency, such as lessons learned and successes, with all states. Doing so could help states meet the training and employment needs of those in recovery, and the needs of potential employers. Why GAO Did This Study The Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in October 2017. DOL has awarded grants to help address this crisis. GAO was asked to examine how WIOA-funded programs are addressing the employment and training needs of those affected by SUD. This report examines (1) how workforce agencies in selected states are using WIOA funding to address employment and training needs, (2) challenges agencies face in addressing employment and training needs, and (3) how DOL is supporting communities affected by SUD. GAO interviewed officials in four of the 10 states that received DOL grants in the early award rounds (as of March 2019)—Maryland, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Washington—and two that did not—Alabama and Arizona; reviewed related documentation and relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed DOL officials and researchers, selected for their knowledge about these issues. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL clarify (1) its expectations of state workforce agencies and (2) how WIOA funding can be used in addressing the needs of those affected by SUD and potential employers, and share information with all states on lessons learned and promising practices. DOL agreed with our recommendations. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Thu, 21 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-492 What GAO Found Employment-related identity fraud occurs when people use a name or Social Security number (SSN) other than their own to get a job. People may do this if they are not authorized to work in the United States or are trying to avoid child support payments, among other reasons. Victims may face Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement actions based on wages earned by fraudsters. IRS identified more than 818,000 cases in 2018, but this included only one form of employment-related identity fraud—mismatches between the identity listed on the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement (W-2) and the identity on the tax return. The true scope of employment-related identity fraud is unknown. GAO reviewed additional forms of this fraud and identified 1.3 million SSNs that for 2016 had both (1) characteristics associated with employment-related identity fraud; and (2) wages reported by the employer on a W-2, but not reported by the employee on a tax return. This includes about 9,000 individuals whose employers reported W-2s in five or more states, but who did not include them all on their tax return (see figure). Example of a Social Security Number Potentially Used for Employment-Related Identity Fraud The Social Security Administration (SSA) processes W-2s before sending W-2 data to IRS for enforcement purposes. SSA has developed processes to detect some inaccurate W-2s and notify potential fraud victims. IRS uses W-2 information to deter some potential fraudsters, but has not assessed the costs and benefits of expanding its enforcement efforts to include certain individuals who may underwithhold taxes or not file returns. Doing so could help IRS determine if such an effort would enable the agency to collect additional revenue. SSA and IRS entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to collaborate to exchange wage data. However, they have not established performance goals and measures for the MOU, implemented the MOU's monitoring provisions, or clearly defined the data elements they exchange. Why GAO Did This Study Employment-related identity fraud poses risks to IRS's ability to collect taxes owed on wages and to SSA's ability to correctly calculate and manage Social Security benefits. GAO was asked to review employment-related identity fraud. This report examines (1) the potential scope of employment-related identity fraud, including what IRS knows about this type of fraud and what GAO could determine by analyzing Department of Health and Human Services' National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and IRS data; (2) SSA and IRS actions to detect and deter this fraud as well as notify victims; and (3) SSA and IRS's collaboration on the issue. GAO analyzed 3 months of 2016 NDNH wage data and 2016 IRS taxpayer data to identify potential employment-related identity fraud. GAO also reviewed relevant IRS and SSA documentation and interviewed agency officials. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in January 2020. Information that SSA deemed sensitive has been omitted. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 12 recommendations to IRS and SSA, including that IRS assess the feasibility of adding checks to its review of employment-related identity fraud, and assess the costs and benefits of expanding enforcement; and that both agencies improve the implementation of their MOU. SSA agreed and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations. For more information, contact Jessica Lucas-Judy at (202) 512-9110 or LucasJudyJ@gao.gov, or Rebecca Shea at (202) 512-6722 or SheaR@gao.gov. Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-240R What GAO Found The nation’s 118 Job Corps centers provide low-income youth with a comprehensive array of services aimed at helping them obtain the skills necessary to get a job, enter the military, or go to college. The Department of Labor (DOL) operates 94 Job Corps centers under agreements with various service providers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service operates the remaining 24 centers, referred to as Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers (CCC), which focus on work experience in managing natural resources, among other things. In a May 30, 2019 Federal Register notice, DOL publicly announced its proposal to end the role of the Forest Service in the Job Corps program. Prior to DOL’s announcement, USDA stated its intent to withdraw from the Job Corps program, and return operation of the Forest Service-operated Job Corps centers to DOL in a May 24, 2019 press release. In both of their announcements, DOL and USDA cited a misalignment between Forest Service’s core mission–to improve the condition and resilience of the nation’s forests–and Job Corps, which primarily focuses on education and employment training. In the Federal Register notice, DOL proposed permanently closing nine CCCs, and transferring operation of the remaining 15 CCCs to DOL. Based on DOL documentation and discussions with DOL officials, GAO found that DOL based its selection of the nine centers on student access to Job Corps centers within their state of residence, center performance, and various cost factors. Regarding student access, DOL officials said they considered the percentage of in-state participants because this is an important element in serving local at-risk youth as well as area employers. Regarding performance, DOL used a weighted 5-year average performance ranking and found that seven of the nine centers were ranked in the bottom half of all Job Corps centers. Regarding costs, DOL officials said most are fixed costs and the cost per student for running some of the centers is high because they serve relatively fewer students. However, DOL did not include its methodology for identifying centers for closure, such as how it calculated center performance, in the notice for public comments. Without this information, members of the public and Congress may not understand how DOL makes its decisions to close certain centers. Although DOL subsequently rescinded its proposal to end USDA Forest Service’s role in the Job Corps program in June 2019, the proposal to close the nine CCCs adversely affected student recruitment and enrollment at those centers. Specifically, DOL suspended student recruitment and enrollment for about a month before rescinding the decision and resuming activities in late June 2019. Suspending operations at the nine centers resulted in the loss of staff and potential new students. Forest Service officials said they are working closely with DOL to increase recruitment and develop a marketing program to attract more students from rural communities, but estimate that it will take about 9 months to attain stable recruitment and enrollment goals. Why GAO Did This Study In May 2019, DOL and USDA announced plans to permanently close nine CCCs and transfer operation of the remaining CCCs from USDA to a contractor or partnership overseen by DOL. The proposal was withdrawn by DOL in June 2019 after members of Congress and others expressed concerns with closing the centers. This report (1) describes the issues that prompted the decision to end USDA's role in the Job Corps program, and how members of the public, Congress, and Forest Service staff were notified of this decision; and (2) describes the factors considered in selecting centers for closure, and examines the effect the announcement of proposed center closures had on Forest Service CCC recruitment and enrollment activities. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, DOL documentation, public notifications, and written responses to questions about the CCCs. GAO interviewed officials from DOL and USDA. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL include detailed information on the methodology used to identify centers for proposed closure in its notices for public comment. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at 202-512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-445PR What GAO Found In April 2019, GAO identified six priority open recommendations for the Department of Labor (DOL). Since then, DOL has implemented one of those recommendations. To address this recommendation, the agency issued a report that considered providing fiduciary relief to retirement plan sponsors to offer a mix of retirement income options. In April 2020, GAO identified two additional open priority recommendations for DOL, bringing the total number to seven. These recommendations involve the following areas: stronger protections for wage earners; potential reductions in improper payments; and better protections for retirees. DOL’s continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-230 What GAO Found Employer demand for H-2B visa workers has increased as the national unemployment rate has declined. H-2B visas are intended to help employers fill temporary, non-agricultural positions when no U.S. workers are available and are subject to an annual statutory cap of 66,000. From 2010 to 2018, the number of H-2B workers requested on employer applications increased from about 86,600 to 147,600. Regarding local economic conditions, GAO found that counties with H-2B employers generally had lower unemployment rates and higher weekly wages than those without H-2B employers. Most of the 35 H-2B employers GAO interviewed said that business planning was affected by uncertainty about whether they would be able to hire the number of H-2B visa workers they requested given the statutory cap. Employers who did not receive all H-2B visas requested under the statutory cap in 2018 were somewhat more likely than those who did to report declines in revenue (see figure) and purchases of goods and services. However, GAO found no clear pattern in changes to the number of U.S. workers hired by these employers. Employers interviewed by GAO varied in how they adjusted to having fewer H-2B workers. For example, two seafood employers reported shutting down operations in the absence of H-2B workers, and employers said that barriers to finding U.S. workers included remote location and seasonality of the work. Reported Revenue Changes from Previous Year for H-2B Employers, Fiscal Year 2018 Federal agencies have identified program changes that consider employers' hiring needs and protect U.S. workers, but gaps remain in implementation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL), has identified options for changing the H-2B visa allocation process to address employers' uncertainty aboutreceiving visas. However, DHS and DOL have not assessed any of these options or determined which would not require Congressional action, and employers continue to struggle with uncertainty. To help ensure H-2B employers comply with U.S. worker recruitment and other requirements, DOL has audited employers' compliance with these requirements. However, in general, DOL randomly selected employers for these audits, rather than taking a risk-based approach using factors such as violation trends by industry. As a result, the agency may not be using its limited audit resources efficiently or effectively. Why GAO Did This Study Since 1990, there has been an annual statutory cap of 66,000 on the number of H-2B visa holders who can work for U.S. employers. DHS administers the program with support from other federal agencies including DOL. In recent years, demand for H-2B visas has exceeded the cap. To meet the needs of U.S. businesses, Congress authorized additional visas in fiscal years 2017-2019. GAO was asked to examine the effects of the annual cap on employers and U.S. workers. This report examines, among other objectives: (1) trends in the demand for H-2B visa workers, (2) selected employers' reports of the visa cap's influence on their performance and employment of U.S. workers, and (3) how federal agencies have sought to meet employers' H-2B hiring needs and protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed nationwide data on H-2B visas and county labor market indicators. GAO interviewed 35 H-2B employers in four industries that are among the largest users of H-2B visas. The employers were in five counties selected for variation in factors including the share of H-2B workers in the workforce and the unemployment rate. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documents and interviewed federal officials and stakeholders. What GAO Recommends GAO is making five recommendations. These include that DHS and DOL assess options to adjust the H-2B visa program and DOL take a risk-based approach to selecting H-2B employers for audits. The agencies agreed with these recommendations as well as one other. DHS disagreed with one, which GAO continues to believe is warranted. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 01 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-438T What GAO Found Coal mine operator bankruptcies have led to the transfer of about $865 million in estimated benefit responsibility to the federal government's Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund), according to DOL estimates. The Trust Fund pays benefits when no responsible operator is identified, or when the liable operator does not pay. GAO previously testified in June 2019 that it had identified three bankrupt, self-insured operators for which benefit responsibility was transferred to the Trust Fund. Since that time, DOL's estimate of the transferred benefit responsibility has grown—from a prior range of $313 million to $325 million to the more recent $865 million estimate provided to GAO in January 2020. According to DOL, this escalation was due, in part, to recent increases in black lung benefit award rates and higher medical treatment costs, and to an underestimate of one company's (Patriot Coal) future benefit claims. Self-Insured Coal Mine Operator Bankruptcies Affecting the Black Lung DisabilityTrust Fund, Filed from 2014 through 2016 Coal operator Amount of collateral at time of bankruptcy Estimated transfer of benefit responsibility to the Trust Fund Estimated number of beneficiaries for whom liability has been transferred to the Trust Fund Alpha Natural Resources $12 million $494 million 1,839 James River Coal $0.4 million $141 million 490 Patriot Coal $15 million $230 million 993 Total $27.4 million $865 million 3,322 Source: Department of Labor (DOL). | GAO-20-438T DOL's limited oversight of coal mine operator insurance has exposed the Trust Fund to financial risk, though recent changes, if implemented effectively, can help address these risks. In overseeing self-insurance in the past, DOL did not: estimate future benefit liability when setting the amount of collateral required to self-insure; regularly review operators to assess whether the required amount of collateral should change; or always take action to protect the Trust Fund by revoking an operators' ability to self-insure as appropriate. In July 2019, DOL began implementing a new self-insurance process that could help address past deficiencies in estimating collateral and regularly reviewing self-insured operators. However, DOL's new process still lacks procedures for its planned annual renewal of self-insured operators and for resolving coal operator appeals should operators dispute DOL collateral requirements. This could hinder DOL from revoking operators' ability to self-insure should they not comply with DOL requirements. Further, for those operators that do not self-insure, DOL does not monitor them to ensure they maintain adequate and continuous commercial coverage as appropriate. As a result, the Trust Fund may in some instances assume responsibility for paying benefits that otherwise would have been paid by insurers. Why GAO Did This Study In May 2018, GAO reported that the Trust Fund, which pays disability benefits to certain coal miners, faced financial challenges. The Trust Fund has borrowed from the U.S. Treasury's general fund almost every year since 1979 to make needed expenditures. GAO's June 2019 testimony included preliminary observations that coal operator bankruptcies were further straining Trust Fund finances because, in some cases, benefit responsibility was transferred to the Trust Fund. This testimony is based on GAO's report being released today, and describes (1) how coal mine operator bankruptcies have affected the Trust Fund, and (2) how DOL managed coal mine operator insurance to limit financial risk to the Trust Fund. In producing this report, GAO identified coal operators that filed for bankruptcy from 2014 through 2016. GAO analyzed information on commercially-insured and self-insured coal operators, and examined workers' compensation insurance practices in four of the nation's top five coal producing states. GAO also interviewed DOL officials, coal mine operators, and insurance company representatives, among others. What GAO Recommends GAO made three recommendations to DOL to establish procedures for self-insurance renewals and coal operator appeals, and to develop a process to monitor whether commercially-insured operators maintain adequate and continuous coverage. DOL agreed with these recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-21 What GAO Found Coal mine operator bankruptcies have led to the transfer of about $865 million in estimated benefit responsibility to the federal government's Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund), according to DOL estimates. The Trust Fund pays benefits when no responsible operator is identified, or when the liable operator does not pay. GAO previously testified in June 2019 that it had identified three bankrupt, self-insured operators for which benefit responsibility was transferred to the Trust Fund. Since that time, DOL's estimate of the transferred benefit responsibility has grown—from a prior range of $313 million to $325 million to the more recent $865 million estimate provided to GAO in January 2020. According to DOL, this escalation was due, in part, to recent increases in black lung benefit award rates and higher medical treatment costs, and to an underestimate of Patriot Coal's future benefit claims. Self-Insured Coal Mine Operator Bankruptcies Affecting the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, Filed from 2014 through 2016     Coal operator   Amount of collateral at time of bankruptcy   Estimated transfer of benefit responsibility to the Trust Fund Estimated number of beneficiaries for whom liability has been transferred to the Trust Fund Alpha Natural Resources $12 million $494 million 1,839 James River Coal $0.4 million $141 million 490 Patriot Coal $15 million $230 million 993 Total $27.4 million $865 million 3,322 Source: Department of Labor (DOL). | GAO-20-21 DOL's limited oversight of coal mine operator insurance has exposed the Trust Fund to financial risk, though recent changes, if implemented effectively, can help address these risks. In overseeing self-insurance in the past, DOL did not estimate future benefit liability when setting the amount of collateral required to self-insure; regularly review operators to assess whether the required amount of collateral should change; or always take action to protect the Trust Fund by revoking an operator's ability to self-insure as appropriate. In July 2019, DOL began implementing a new self-insurance process that could help address past deficiencies in estimating collateral and regularly reviewing self-insured operators. However, DOL's new process still lacks procedures for its planned annual renewal of self-insured operators and for resolving coal operator appeals should operators dispute DOL collateral requirements. This could hinder DOL from revoking an operator's ability to self-insure should they not comply with DOL requirements. Further, for those operators that do not self-insure, DOL does not monitor them to ensure they maintain adequate and continuous commercial coverage as appropriate. As a result, the Trust Fund may in some instances assume responsibility for paying benefits that otherwise would have been paid by an insurer. Why GAO Did This Study In May 2018, GAO reported that the Trust Fund, which pays benefits to certain coal miners, faced financial challenges. The Trust Fund has borrowed from the U.S. Treasury's general fund almost every year since 1979 to make needed expenditures. GAO's June 2019 testimony included preliminary observations that coal operator bankruptcies were further straining Trust Fund finances because, in some cases, benefit responsibility was transferred to the Trust Fund. This report examines (1) how coal mine operator bankruptcies have affected the Trust Fund, and (2) how DOL managed coal mine operator insurance to limit financial risk to the Trust Fund. GAO identified coal operators that filed for bankruptcy from 2014 through 2016 using Bloomberg data. GAO selected these years, in part, because bankruptcies were more likely to be resolved so that their effects on the Trust Fund could be assessed. GAO analyzed information on commercially-insured and self-insured coal operators, and examined workers' compensation insurance practices in four of the nation's top five coal producing states. GAO also interviewed DOL officials, coal mine operators, and insurance company representatives, among others. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations to DOL to establish procedures for self-insurance renewals and coal operator appeals, and to develop a process to monitor whether commercially-insured operators maintain adequate and continuous coverage. DOL agreed with our recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov, or Alicia Puente Cackley at  (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-236 What GAO Found The National Mediation Board (NMB), which facilitates labor relations for airline and railway carriers, has implemented one of GAO's seven recommendations remaining from past reports (see table). Specifically, NMB has developed a policy to prevent violations of ethics rules regarding outside employment and monitors compliance with that policy. NMB has not yet fully implemented the other six recommendations. For example, NMB has developed some strategies to reduce its arbitration case backlog, but lacks a plan with goals and time frames to complete that work. Similarly, NMB has completed an organizational climate assessment, but still must take additional actions to address employee concerns. By not fully implementing these and other recommendations, NMB remains at risk of not fulfilling its mission in several key areas, including information security and organizational climate.   In this review, GAO found that, in addition to the six unimplemented recommendations, NMB lacks internal controls to effectively manage and oversee its appropriations and consistently follow its audit policies. NMB officials said the agency needed its full funding to address various agency priorities, such as hiring information technology specialists, but NMB did not use all of its funding for fiscal years 2016 through 2019, leaving a total of more than $4 million unobligated from those years; those funds are not available to NMB for new obligations. Officials said that hiring challenges and uncertainty concerning the agency's final appropriations made managing its budget resources difficult. NMB has a new process to monitor its budget resources, but has not documented that process. Without documenting that process, NMB may not be certain it uses its funding effectively to achieve its hiring and other goals. Additionally, NMB has not consistently followed its audit policy to address deficiencies identified in financial and other audits. For example, NMB did not create specific corrective action plans to address findings from financial or GAO audits. The NMB Board said it relied on senior managers to follow procedures, but the Board is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its managers implement the internal control system. Without a process to effectively oversee and evaluate its adherence to internal controls and its own audit policies, NMB may miss opportunities to achieve objectives, address audit deficiencies, and improve management oversight. Why GAO Did This Study NMB was established under the Railway Labor Act to facilitate labor relations for airline and railway carriers by mediating and arbitrating labor disputes and overseeing union elections. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 included a provision for GAO to evaluate NMB programs and activities every 2 years. GAO's previous reports, issued in December 2013, February 2016, and March 2018, included 13 recommendations for NMB based on assessments of policies and processes in several management and program areas. NMB had implemented six of those recommendations previously, leaving seven for our review. This fourth report examines the (1) extent to which NMB has taken actions to fully implement GAO's remaining recommendations, and (2) other challenges NMB faces in key management areas and in overseeing its operations. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and NMB documents, such as its travel and telework policies; examined arbitration caseload data and the results of NMB's 2019 Organizational Climate Assessment; and interviewed NMB officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making four recommendations, including that NMB document its process for reviewing and monitoring the agency's annual appropriations to ensure effective use of funds, and establish a process for the Board to effectively monitor and evaluate NMB's adherence to audit policies. NMB agreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Tranchau (Kris) T. Nguyen at (202) 512-7215 or nguyentt@gao.gov. Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-421T What GAO Found Federal data provide some information on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-certificated aviation maintenance workforce, though certain data limitations exist. FAA maintains data on the number of individuals newly certificated each year, but less is known about how many certificated individuals exit the aviation industry each year and the extent of growing demand. A sufficient supply of certificated workers is critical for safety and to meet the growing demand for air travel. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data provide some information on pay and demand for aviation maintenance workers more broadly, but do not differentiate between FAA-certificated and non-certificated workers due to data collection challenges. Demographic data may also be useful for workforce analysis and planning. FAA data provide some demographic information on certificated mechanics and repairmen, such as age and sex, but the agency lacks data on race and ethnicity. According to GAO analysis of FAA data, the median age of the roughly 330,000 mechanics and repairmen FAA had certificated as of December 2018 was 54 years old and three percent were women. Government agencies, educational institutions, and businesses coordinate to some extent in support of this workforce, but FAA does not routinely analyze, collect, or coordinate with other stakeholders on certain data related to workforce development. One of FAA's strategic objectives includes promoting the development of a robust, skilled aviation workforce, and the agency established a committee, in part, to explore ways to diversify this workforce; however, FAA is not currently positioned to understand whether its efforts are optimally targeted or effective. Without routinely analyzing its own data or leveraging others' data, FAA may not have certain information it needs to track or ensure progress toward its workforce development goals. FAA has acknowledged that curriculum requirements for Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) schools and mechanic testing standards are outdated. Efforts to revise the decades-old curriculum requirements for AMT schools are ongoing and FAA officials told GAO that a final rule will be published some time toward the end of 2020. FAA officials indicated that the revised mechanic testing standards would likely be finalized after. Why GAO Did This Study FAA requires that only mechanics who are "certificated" by the FAA approve aircraft for return to service. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that retirements and attrition could adversely affect the capacity of this workforce to meet the growing demand for air travel, and that the mechanic curriculum is outdated. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included provisions for GAO to examine the aviation workforce. This testimony examines (1) what federal data reveal about the characteristics of the aviation maintenance workforce, (2) how selected federal agencies and other key stakeholders provide support and coordinate to develop the skills of this workforce, and (3) FAA's progress in updating the curriculum and testing standards for mechanics. GAO analyzed FAA and BLS data; reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed selected federal agency, industry, and AMT school officials. What GAO Recommends In its February 2020 report, GAO recommended that FAA use its existing data and coordinate with other federal agencies to identify and gather information to measure progress and target resources toward its goal of promoting a robust, qualified, and diverse aviation maintenance workforce. FAA agreed with the recommendation. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834, or krauseh@gao.gov. Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-199 What GAO Found The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) did not incorporate key cybersecurity management practices into the planning for its Secure Online Claims Reporting and Tracking E-filing System (SOCRATES) project. While OCWR drafted a SOCRATES project schedule, the office did not finalize and use this schedule to manage cybersecurity activities, such as the time frames for conducting information technology (IT) system security assessments. In addition, the office did not document project cybersecurity risks, such as the office's reliance on external parties to implement responsibilities on its behalf. These weaknesses were due, in part, to a lack of policies and procedures for IT project planning. Until OCWR establishes and implements such policies and procedures, it will continue to have a limited ability to effectively manage and monitor the completion of cybersecurity activities for its IT projects. OCWR did not fully implement important oversight activities for two selected systems—SOCRATES and the system used to document occupational safety and health violations known as the Facility Management Assistant (FMA)—operated by external entities (see table). Extent to Which the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) Implemented Selected System Oversight Activities for Two Systems Operated by External Entities   Establish security and privacy requirements Plan assessment of security controls Conduct assessment Review assessment Secure Online Claims Reporting and Tracking E-filing System (SOCRATES) ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ Facility Management Assistant (FMA) ◐ ○ ○ ○ Key: ● Fully implemented ◐ Partially implemented ○ Not implemented Source: GAO analysis of agency and external contractor data. | GAO-20-199 These shortfalls contributed to concerns with the deployment of SOCRATES in June 2019. For example, important security controls needed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system were not fully tested before the system was deployed. In addition, penetration testing—where evaluators mimic real-world attacks in an attempt to identify ways to circumvent the security features of the system—was not fully completed before deployment. GAO plans to issue a separate report with limited distribution on its assessment of security controls intended to, among other things, prevent successful attacks. Although OCWR's strategic plan includes a goal of developing cybersecurity policies and procedures, the office had not fully established an effective approach for managing organization-wide cybersecurity risk. For example, OCWR designated an executive to oversee risk, but had not established the responsibilities of the official in the office's policies. Until OCWR improves its appoach to managing cybersecurity risks, its ability to make operational decisions that adequately address security risks will be hindered. Why GAO Did This Study OCWR is an independent, nonpartisan office that administers and enforces various provisions related to fair employment, and occupational safety and health within the legislative branch. To meet its mission, OCWR relies extensively on external parties, such as the Library of Congress, for IT support. In December 2018, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act (Reform Act) which, among other things, required OCWR to create a secure, online system to receive and keep track of claims related to employee rights and protections, such as sexual harassment and discrimination. To meet this requirement, OCWR initiated the SOCRATES project to upgrade its legacy claims management system. The Reform Act included a provision for GAO to review OCWR's cybersecurity practices. This report examines the extent to which OCWR (1) incorporated key cybersecurity management activities into project planning for its claims management system upgrade, (2) performed oversight of security controls and mitigated risks for selected systems operated by external parties on its behalf and, (3) established an effective approach for managing organization-wide cybersecurity risk. To address these objectives, GAO compared OCWR IT policies, procedures, strategic plans, and documentation for two selected systems to leading IT project planning, system oversight, and cybersecurity management practices. What GAO Recommends GAO is making five recommendations to OCWR to address weaknesses in cybersecurity management and oversight. OCWR did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with GAO's recommendations, but described actions planned or taken to address them. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at (202) 512-9342 or marinosn@gao.gov. Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-271R What GAO Found The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) followed a competitive process to select a contractor for the Operations and Workforce Analysis (OWA) project. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) initiated this project to, among other things, examine its operations and workforce and develop ideas to help NWS better meet the needs of its core partners, including state and local emergency management agencies, and other stakeholders, such as some utility companies. To select a contractor, NOAA issued a Request for Quotes for a firm-fixed-price task order in December 2014. NOAA received six quotes in response. After evaluating the quotes, NOAA awarded the task order to McKinsey & Company for the OWA project in April 2015. NOAA later took two additional actions to expand the scope of the OWA project. First, NOAA issued a Request for Quotes for a second task order for additional work focused on NWS units, such as regional offices, that were not the primary focus of the work under the first task order. In response, NOAA received one quote—from McKinsey—and awarded the second task order to McKinsey in April 2016. Second, NOAA further expanded the scope of the OWA project by subsequently modifying the second task order to add new work looking at the broader weather enterprise, which encompasses public sector, private industry, and academic institutions that have a weather focus. By awarding—and subsequently modifying—the second task order, NOAA expanded the work that McKinsey was to perform and increased the price of the OWA project from about $6.8 million (when the first task order was awarded) to over $13.7 million at the end of performance for the two task orders. The OWA task orders identified a range of materials and services that McKinsey was required to provide to NWS for the OWA project. McKinsey provided NWS with materials and services under the task orders from 2015 through 2017, with most provided by the end of 2016. NWS accepted all of the materials and services as meeting the requirements under the task orders, according to NOAA and NWS officials. The materials and services included a variety of briefing slides, analytical tools, reports, facilitated meetings, training sessions, and workshops. For example, in August and September 2015, McKinsey delivered information on the baseline status and gaps in NWS’s operations and workforce through two sets of briefing slides. McKinsey’s work generated 14 findings focused on NWS’s workforce, operating model, and organization, among other things, including findings related to a lack of clarity about the roles of various NWS offices and the need for improved collaboration among offices. McKinsey then facilitated the work of several teams of NWS managers and staff that developed 28 ideas intended to address the findings, including ideas for clarifying roles and developing a collaborative forecast process. Why GAO Did This Study NWS is responsible for issuing weather forecasts and warnings to help protect life and property during severe weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms. Over the past decade, reports by the National Academy of Sciences and others have identified challenges facing NWS that may hamper the agency’s ability to deliver its services, including challenges related to the agency’s operations and workforce. Partially in response to these reports, NWS initiated the OWA project in 2015. GAO was asked to review NOAA’s contractor selection process for NWS’s OWA project and the work performed by the contractor. This report describes (1) NOAA’s process for selecting a contractor for the OWA project and subsequent changes to the project’s scope and total price and (2) the materials and services that the contractor provided to NWS and the findings and ideas the contractor and NWS developed under the OWA project. GAO reviewed agency documents associated with the project, including acquisition documents such as Requests for Quotes and memorandums describing NOAA’s process for selecting a contractor. GAO also reviewed and summarized documentation of the materials and services the contractor provided to NWS as well as NWS documents about the findings and ideas developed under the OWA project. In addition, GAO interviewed NOAA contracting officials, NWS headquarters officials, and contractor staff who were involved with the OWA project. For more information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-304SP This supplement is a companion to GAO’s report entitled Securities and Exchange Commission: Personnel Management Shows Improvement, but Action Needed on Performance Management System, GAO-20-208. The purpose of this supplement is to provide results from two GAO web-based surveys of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees. The purpose of these surveys was to obtain employees’ views on SEC’s organizational culture and on various aspects of working at SEC, including questions on (1) personnel management issues related to recruitment, training, staff development, and resources; (2) communication among and within divisions and offices; (3) leadership and management; (4) performance management and promotions; and (5) organizational culture and climate. The surveys included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-222 What GAO Found The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights' (OCWR) mission is to effectively implement and enforce the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), as amended in 2018 by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act (Reform Act). OCWR has implemented three of the four Reform Act requirements that generally became effective June 19, 2019, as shown below. Three other Reform Act requirements—track and report data and assessments, conduct a workplace climate survey, and educate and assist legislative branch offices—are in progress. Implementation Status of Reform Act Requirements Generally Effective June 19, 2019 Requirement Statusa Manage changes to the Administrative Dispute Resolution process Completed Appoint or designate confidential advisor Completed Create a secure electronic claims reporting systemb Completed Establish and maintain a program for the permanent retention of its records Not completed Source: GAO analysis of OCWR information and the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act, Public Law No. 115-397 (2018). | GAO-20-222 aGAO obtained updates on implementation status as of October 9, 2019. bIn 2020, GAO will issue two reports on OCWR's cybersecurity practices. The reports will discuss the extent to which OCWR has implemented security controls for its electronic claims reporting system. OCWR has incorporated some key management practices when implementing requirements, such as managing risks associated with appointing a confidential advisor. However, opportunities exist to further incorporate key management practices in OCWR's work. For example: Addressing risks . OCWR has not yet developed policies and procedures to address the risks associated with permanently retaining sensitive records, such as ensuring they remain confidential when stored in multiple locations. Measuring performance . OCWR has not established measurable performance targets and milestones or related performance measures. Doing so would allow OCWR to determine if it is making progress toward its long-term goals and better communicate with congressional and other stakeholders about its progress. Monitoring effectiveness . OCWR routinely conducts educational activities, such as holding brown bag events and online training, and performs a variety of outreach activities. OCWR has new opportunities every 2 years to collect data through the workplace climate survey on the extent to which legislative branch employees are aware of OCWR's services and their rights under the CAA. GAO found that OCWR implemented most recommendations from a 2004 GAO report examining OCWR's management controls. GAO also found that OCWR later stopped implementing a recommendation related to information technology (IT) planning, including ensuring that it obtained necessary IT skills. Without IT strategic planning, including recruiting and retaining staff with mission-critical IT skills, OCWR may be less able to carry out its strategic initiatives. Why GAO Did This Study OCWR is an independent, non-partisan office that administers and enforces various provisions related to fair employment and occupational safety and health within the legislative branch. Responding to concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace, Congress passed the Reform Act in 2018, which expanded worker protections and overhauled the process for resolving workplace claims, including claims relating to discrimination and harassment. The act also required OCWR to create a secure, electronic claims system and appoint a confidential advisor to assist claimants, among other requirements. The Reform Act includes a provision for GAO to review OCWR's management practices. This report examines (1) the status of OCWR's efforts to address new requirements in the Reform Act; (2) how OCWR is incorporating key management practices to implement the new requirements; and (3) the extent to which OCWR implemented recommendations from a related 2004 GAO report. GAO reviewed documentation on OCWR's processes, interviewed officials from OCWR and selected legislative branch offices, and assessed how OCWR's actions aligned with key organizational change management practices that GAO identified and key project management practices from the Project Management Institute. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations to OCWR to better incorporate key management practices as it implements requirements, and to improve its strategic planning. OCWR agreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov. Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-208 What GAO Found Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees in the five divisions and four offices GAO surveyed expressed positive views on some aspects of SEC's personnel management but reported concerns in other areas. For example, employees GAO surveyed generally had positive views on their direct supervisors and colleagues—81 percent of nonexecutive employees agreed that their direct supervisors had the skills and expertise to be effective managers. However, more than one-third of employees expressed concerns in areas such as performance management and favoritism. For example, 48 percent of nonexecutives disagreed that the performance management system in place at the time of GAO's review created meaningful distinctions in performance. SEC has implemented eight of GAO's nine recommendations related to personnel management. However, SEC has not yet implemented a 2013 GAO recommendation to validate its performance management system—that is, to obtain staff input and agreement on the competencies, rating procedures, and other key aspects of the system. SEC plans to implement a new system in 2020, and validating this system would help ensure that it achieves its goals and identify changes needed to address employee dissatisfaction with performance management. In addition, a key feature of SEC's new performance management system will be a bonus program through which supervisors can nominate high-performing employees for a bonus of up to $10,000 once per fiscal year. However, SEC has not yet developed mechanisms for transparency and fairness for this new bonus program. GAO has previously highlighted the need for safeguards to better ensure fairness and transparency in performance management, particularly around systems affecting pay. Incorporating safeguards into the new bonus program—such as including multiple levels of review and publishing aggregate data on award decisions—would promote transparency and could increase employee confidence in the program. Since GAO's most recent review in 2016, SEC has taken actions to implement a more comprehensive workforce planning process and strengthen intra-agency communication and collaboration. For example, SEC conducted a comprehensive analysis to identify skills gaps in its workforce. It also improved the link between its budget formulation process and annual meetings in which the Office of Human Resources consults with each division and office on its workforce needs and priorities. Additionally, to strengthen communication and collaboration, SEC commissioned a study to identify relevant best practices and created formal mechanisms, such as working groups, to enhance collaboration across divisions and offices. For example, in 2018, SEC created its Operations Steering Committee through which senior operational leaders throughout the agency periodically meet to coordinate on cross-agency operational issues, including those related to human capital. Why GAO Did This Study The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains a provision for GAO to report triennially on SEC's personnel management. GAO's first two reports (GAO-13-621 and GAO-17-65) identified a number of challenges and included nine recommendations. This report examines (1) employees' views on SEC's personnel management, (2) SEC's performance management system, (3) SEC's steps to improve its workforce planning processes, and (4) SEC's efforts to improve communication and collaboration. GAO surveyed a representative sample of nonexecutive SEC employees in key occupations and all senior officers in nine key divisions and offices (with response rates of 64 and 63 percent, respectively). The results of the nonexecutive employee survey are generalizable to SEC's mission-critical employees. GAO also followed up on prior recommendations, reviewed SEC documents and personnel management practices, analyzed SEC workforce data, and interviewed SEC officials. What GAO Recommends SEC should develop and implement safeguards to better ensure transparency and fairness in its new incentive bonus program. SEC agreed with this recommendation. GAO also reiterates its recommendation in GAO-13-621 that SEC conduct periodic validations (with staff input) of the performance management system and make changes, as appropriate, based on these validations. SEC stated that it expects to take action on this recommendation at the end of the 2020 performance cycle. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or clementsm@gao.gov. Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-194 What GAO Found Recent research indicates that, across three key measures, economic mobility in the United States is limited. Specifically, the Millennial generation (those born between 1982 and 2000) might not have the same opportunity as previous generations had to fare better economically than their parents. According to studies GAO reviewed, the share of people making more money than their parents at the same age (absolute mobility) has declined over the last 40 years, and the chances of moving up the income distribution (relative mobility) have been flat over time. Using a third measure of economic mobility (intergenerational income elasticity), researchers have found that income in adulthood is linked to how much a person's parents made, and that between one-third and two-thirds of economic status is passed down from parents to children. This is especially true of the lowest and highest income groups. Researchers also identified race and geography as key determinants of an individual's economic mobility. Millennials have different financial circumstances than Generation X (born 1965-1981) and Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), and in light of flat or declining economic mobility, there is uncertainty about how they will fare financially as they age. A snapshot of data that allowed GAO to compare Millennials aged 25-34 to the previous two generations at similar ages showed that Millennial households were more likely than other generations to be college educated; however, incomes have remained flat across the three generations, implying that Millennials have not yet benefited from the potential additional lifetime income earned by college graduates. Millennial households had significantly lower median and average net worth than Generation X households at similar ages (see figure), especially among those with low net worth. Median net worth for the lowest quartile of Baby Boomers and Generation X was around zero, but it was substantially negative for Millennials, indicating that debt was greater than assets for the median low net worth Millennial household. Regarding assets, a significantly lower percentage of Millennials owned homes compared to previous generations at similar ages, but had retirement resources at rates comparable to Generation X and Baby Boomers. Finally, Millennials were more likely to have student loan debt that exceeded their annual income. It remains to be seen how these factors will affect Millennials' financial circumstances in the long run, including retirement. Estimated Median Net Worth for Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial Households in the 25-34 Age Range, in 2016 Dollars Why GAO Did This Study The idea that individuals should have the opportunity to economically advance beyond the circumstances of their birth is a familiar element of the American Dream. In an economically mobile society, it is possible for individuals to improve their economic circumstances through effort, education, investment, and talent. In addition to opportunities through the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, the federal government also promotes economic mobility through many efforts, including supporting education, job training, business incentives and development, and child health and well-being programs. However, a recent survey indicates that over approximately the last two decades fewer people report being satisfied with the opportunity to get ahead by working hard. According to recent studies, the Millennial generation, who comprise the largest portion of the American workforce, report feeling overwhelmed by their financial situation and concerned about their future financial security. GAO was asked to review trends in economic mobility and Millennials' economic situation compared to previous generations. This report examines (1) what is known about intergenerational income mobility, and (2) how the financial circumstances of Millennials compare to previous generations. To perform this work GAO conducted an extensive literature review and analyzed data from the nationally representative Survey of Consumer Finances. For more information, contact Charles Jeszeck at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-8 What GAO Found Officials from seven selected states that GAO interviewed described challenges they faced implementing new Medicaid provider screening and enrollment requirements, established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010 and the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016. These challenges included establishing procedures for risk-based screenings, using federal databases and collecting required information, and screening an increased volume of providers. Due in part to these challenges, officials from five of the seven selected states told GAO they had not implemented certain requirements. For example, one state plans to launch its new information technology system, which automates screenings, before it will enroll providers under contract with managed care organizations, as required under these laws. Summary of Provider Screening Activities for Medicaid Enrollment The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency that oversees Medicaid—supports states' implementation of new requirements with tailored optional consultations, such as CMS contractor site visits that examine the extent of states' implementation. Yet, because these are optional, states that need support might not participate, and CMS would not have information on those states. CMS uses other methods to oversee states' compliance, such as, the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) process for estimating improper payments, and focused program integrity reviews. PERM. This process assesses states' compliance with provider screening and enrollment requirements, but does not assess compliance for all providers and all requirements, and occurs once every 3 years. Focused program integrity reviews. These reviews examine specific areas in Medicaid, like state compliance with provider screening and enrollment requirements, but have not been done in all states. CMS conducted reviews in 39 states in fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Collectively, CMS's oversight methods do not provide it with comprehensive and timely reviews of states' implementation of the provider screening and enrollment requirements or the remediation of deficiences. As a result, CMS lacks assurance that only eligible providers are participating in the Medicaid program. Why GAO Did This Study A crucial component of protecting the integrity of the Medicaid program is ensuring that only eligible providers participate in Medicaid. States' non-compliance with provider screening and enrollment requirements contributed to over a third of the $36.3 billion estimated improper payments in Medicaid in 2018. To improve the integrity of the Medicaid program, PPACA and the 21st Century Cures Act established new requirements for screening and enrolling providers and expanded enrollment to include additional provider types. In this report, GAO (1) describes challenges states faced implementing provider screening and enrollment requirements; and (2) examines CMS support for and oversight of states' implementation of these requirements. GAO reviewed federal laws and CMS guidance. GAO also reviewed CMS documents, including reports resulting from CMS oversight activities published from 2014 through 2018 for seven states. These states were selected based on their use of CMS's contractor site visits, among other things. GAO also interviewed officials from CMS and the seven selected states. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that CMS (1) expand its review of states' implementation of provider screening and enrollment requirements to include states that have not participated in optional consultations; and (2) for states not fully compliant with the requirements, annually monitor the progress of those states' implementation. The Department of Health and Human Services, the department that houses CMS, concurred with both recommendations. For more information, contact Carolyn L. Yocom at (202) 512-7114 or yocomc@gao.gov. Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-723T What GAO Found Outmoded approaches to personnel functions such as job classification, pay, and performance management are hampering the ability of agencies to recruit, retain, and develop employees. At the same time, agency operations are being deeply affected by a set of evolving trends in federal work, including how work is done and the skills that employees need to accomplish agency missions. Key Trends Affecting Federal Work Given these challenges and trends, federal agencies will need to apply talent management strategies such as the following: Align human capital strategy with current and future mission requirements. Agencies need to identify the knowledge and skills necessary to respond to current and future demands. Key practices include identifying and assessing existing skills, competencies, and skills gaps. Acquire and assign talent. To ensure the appropriate capacity exists to address evolving mission requirements, agencies can use internships, cultivate a diverse talent pipeline, highlight their respective missions, and recruit early in the school year. Incentivize and compensate employees. While agencies may struggle to offer competitive pay in certain labor markets, they can leverage existing incentives that appeal to workers' desire to set a schedule and to work in locations that provide work-life balance. Engage employees. Engaged employees are more productive and less likely to leave, according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Agencies can better ensure their employees are engaged by managing their performance, involving them in decisions, and providing staff development. Why GAO Did This Study The federal workforce is critical to federal agencies' ability to address the complex social, economic, and security challenges facing the country. However, the federal government faces long-standing challenges in strategically managing its workforce. We first added federal strategic human capital management to our list of high-risk government programs and operations in 2001. Although Congress, OPM, and individual agencies have made improvements since then, federal human capital management remains a high-risk area because mission-critical skills gaps within the federal workforce pose a high risk to the nation. This testimony focuses on (1) key hiring and other human capital management challenges facing federal agencies, and (2) talent management strategies identified from GAO's prior work that agencies can use to be more attractive employers in a tight labor market. This testimony is based on GAO's large body of work on federal human capital management issued primarily between July 2014 and July 2019. To conduct these studies, GAO reviewed government-wide employment data and interviewed officials from OPM and subject matter specialists from think tanks, academia, government employee unions, and other areas. What GAO Recommends Of the 29 recommendations to OPM that GAO has designated as priorities for implementation, 21 are aimed at improving strategic human capital management efforts government-wide. OPM agreed or partially agreed with most of these recommendations, of which 11 are still open. GAO will continue to monitor OPM's progress in addressing them. For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or GoldenkoffR@gao.gov. Wed, 25 Sep 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-719T What GAO Found The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) face challenges in overseeing compliance by employers and federal contractors with applicable federal equal employment opportunity requirements. In its 2016 report, GAO made six recommendations to OFCCP and in its 2017 report made five additional recommendations to OFCCP and one to EEOC to strengthen program oversight. OFCCP has implemented four recommendations, but seven require additional agency action to be fully implemented, as does the one to EEOC. For example: In 2016, GAO found that OFCCP's oversight was limited by reliance on contractors' voluntary compliance with affirmative action plan requirements. OFCCP has taken steps to develop a new web portal for collecting those plans annually, but has not yet obtained Office of Management and Budget approval for the collection or launched the portal. GAO also found OFCCP's oversight was limited by a lack of timely staff training. OFCCP has taken steps to implement a new training curriculum, but has not yet implemented its new learning management system that will help ensure timely and regular training. In 2017, GAO found that EEOC had not consistently captured information on industry codes, which limits EEOC's ability to identify trends by industry sector and conduct sector-related analyses. EEOC has not yet completed development of its Employer Master List that will include industry codes. GAO also found that OFCCP's methodology for identifying equal employment disparities by industry might not accurately identify industries at greatest risk of noncompliance with affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. OFCCP has taken steps to develop a new methodology, but needs to further refine it to ensure that it will identify industries at greatest risk. From fiscal years 2007 through 2015, few faith-based grantees sought an exemption from nondiscrimination laws related to religious-based hiring under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. In October 2017, GAO found that the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL) had awarded funding to at least 2,586 grantees through at least 53 grant programs that restricted grantees from making employment decisions based on religion. The number of relevant grant programs could be higher because GAO could not identify all such programs due to data limitations. Across the three agencies, GAO identified 117 grantees that were potentially faith-based organizations (FBO). Of the 117 potential FBOs, nine DOJ grantees were FBOs certified as being exempt from statutory restrictions on religious-based hiring. All three agencies required grantees seeking an exemption to self-certify that they were eligible for the exemption, but the agencies' processes for reviewing and approving exemption requests varied. In August 2019, OFCCP issued a proposed rule to clarify the scope and application of the religious exemption to help organizations with federal contracts and subcontracts and federally assisted construction contracts and subcontracts better understand their obligations. Why GAO Did This Study Several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations seek to promote equal employment opportunity by prohibiting employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of race and gender, among other things, and generally require companies contracting with the federal government to comply with affirmative action and other equal employment opportunity provisions. The EEOC and OFCCP are the primary federal agencies that enforce these requirements. Although federal law also generally prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, faith-based organizations may hire based on religion. Some federal grant programs contain statutory restrictions prohibiting this practice; however, since a 2007 DOJ legal opinion, federal agencies have allowed faith-based grantees to use RFRA as a basis for seeking an exemption to allow religious-based hiring. GAO has issued three reports since September 2016 that address equal employment opportunity (GAO-16-750, GAO-18-69, and GAO-18-164). This testimony is based on these three reports and discusses 1) OFCCP and EEOC's progress in addressing prior GAO recommendations and 2) equal employment opportunity exemptions for faith-based organizations. To update the status of prior recommendations, GAO reviewed agency guidance and documentation and interviewed agency officials. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-326 What GAO Found In program year 2016, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) operated 68 of its 97 Job Corps centers using bridge contracts. GAO has generally defined a bridge contract as an extension to an existing contract or a new noncompetitive contract awarded to the current contractor to avoid a lapse in service. GAO found that ETA operated most of these Job Corps centers (49 of 68) under bridge contracts for at least a year, with over a third operating under bridges for 2 years or potentially longer. ETA cited workforce challenges such as staff vacancies and the need to address issues raised in protests as contributing to its use of bridge contracts. ETA officials said they used various strategies to decrease their use of noncompetitive bridge contracts, including prioritizing efforts to award more contracts competitively. By the end of program year 2017, most of the centers operating under bridge contracts during program year 2016 (48 of 68) had transitioned to competitive contracts. Despite these efforts, ETA continues to face workforce challenges. Contracting officials expressed concern about having sufficient staff to award a large group of contracts that will begin to expire in program years 2021 and 2022 (see figure). ETA officials said it takes about 8 to 12 months from solicitation to contract award for new 5-year competitive procurements. Therefore, acquisition planning for a center contract set to expire in January 2021 would usually need to begin early 2020. However, ETA does not have a comprehensive workforce strategy to address its workforce challenges or support these new contract awards. As a result, ETA risks relying on noncompetitive bridge contracts again in the future. The Number of Job Corps Centers GAO Projected to Need New Contracts in Program Years 2019-2023 Note: Centers are operated on a program year basis, which runs from July 1 of a given year to June 30 of the following year. ETA used various strategies to monitor and incentivize contractor performance at the 10 centers GAO reviewed, including conducting onsite visits to Job Corps centers and paying incentive fees to contractors. However, contracting and program officials GAO interviewed had limited or no insight into how ETA calculates and pays incentive fees. Without coordinating and documenting the process for calculating incentive fees, ETA's program and contract officials may lack key information regarding contractor performance. Why GAO Did This Study Job Corps' 119 centers, which are operated primarily by contractors, provide an array of services to help low-income youth find a job, go to college, or enter the military. ETA is generally required to award competitive contracts, but can award noncompetitive contracts in certain instances. Some noncompetitive contracts act as bridge contracts—which can be a useful tool to avoid a lapse in service but, when used frequently and for prolonged periods, can increase the risk of the government overpaying for services. This report examines (1) the extent to which ETA used bridge contracts to operate Job Corps centers in program year 2016; (2) strategies ETA used to decrease the use of noncompetitive bridge contracts; and (3) how ETA monitored contractor performance at selected Job Corps centers. GAO analyzed data from program years 2016 and 2017(the most current data available at the time we began our review) from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, and reviewed contract documents. GAO also conducted an in-depth review of 10 centers that reflected a mix of contractor performances and at least one center from Job Corps' six regions, and interviewed ETA officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making two recommendations, including that ETA develop (1) a comprehensive strategy to account for workforce needs and future center contracts, and (2) a coordinated and documented process for sharing information on incentive fees paid to contractors. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov, or Timothy J. DiNapoli at (202) 512-4841 or dinapolit@gao.gov. Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-696T What GAO Found GAO, along with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and individual agencies, has identified skills gaps in numerous government-wide occupations. According to GAO's 2019 analysis of federal high-risk areas, skills gaps played a role in 17 of the 35 high-risk areas. Causes vary but these skills gaps often occur due to shortfalls in one or more talent management activities such as robust workforce planning. Staffing shortages and the lack of skills among current staff not only affect individual agencies but also cut across the entire federal workforce in areas such as cybersecurity and acquisition management. Additionally, the changing nature of federal work and the high percentage of employees eligible for retirement could produce gaps in leadership and institutional knowledge, and threatens to aggravate the problems created from existing skills gaps. For example, 31.6 percent of permanent federal employees who were on board as of September 30, 2017, will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years with some agencies having particularly high levels of employees eligible to retire. GAO's work has identified a range of problems and challenges with federal recruitment and hiring efforts. Some of these problems and challenges include unclear job announcements and a lengthy hiring process. Further, the federal workforce has changed since the government's system of current employment policies and practices were designed. Strategies that can help agencies better manage the current and future workforces include: Manage the timing of recruitment. To address issues of funding uncertainty at the beginning of the fiscal year, agencies should recruit continuously, starting the hiring process early in the school year. Write user-friendly vacancy announcements. GAO has reported that some federal job announcements were unclear. This can confuse applicants and delay hiring. OPM stated that when hiring managers partner with human resources staff, agencies can develop more effective vacancy announcements. Leverage available hiring and pay flexibilities. To help ensure agencies have the talent they need, they should explore and use all existing hiring authorities. A variety of special pay authorities can help agencies compete in the labor market for top talent, but GAO has found that agencies only use them for a small number of employees. Increase support for an inclusive work environment. An increasingly diverse workforce can help provide agencies with the requisite talent and multidisciplinary knowledge to accomplish their missions. Encourage rotations and other mobility opportunities. Upward and lateral mobility opportunities are important for retaining employees, but few employees move horizontally because managers are sometimes reluctant to lose employees. Without these measures, the federal government's ability to address the complex social, economic, and security challenges facing the country may be compromised. Why GAO Did This Study Strategic human capital management plays a critical role in maximizing the government's performance and assuring its accountability to Congress and to the nation as a whole. GAO designated strategic human capital management as a government-wide, high-risk area in 2001. Since then, important progress has been made. However, retirements and the potential loss of leadership and institutional knowledge, coupled with fiscal pressures, underscore the importance of a strategic and efficient approach to acquiring and retaining individuals with critical skills. As a result, strategic human capital management remains on GAO's High-Risk List. This testimony is based on a large body of GAO work issued from May 2008 through May 2019. This testimony, among other things, focuses on key human capital areas where some actions have been taken but attention is still needed by OPM and federal agencies on issues including: (1) addressing critical skills gaps and (2) recruiting and hiring talented employees. What GAO Recommends Over the years, GAO has made numerous recommendations to agencies and OPM to improve their strategic human capital management efforts. Agencies have taken actions to implement some of these recommendations, but many remain open. GAO encourages OPM and the agencies to fully implement the recommendations. For more information, contact Yvonne D, Jones at (202) 512- 6806 or jonesy@gao.gov.   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-438R What GAO Found About 300 employment assistance centers have been established at military installations worldwide. These centers operate the mandatory Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which provides counseling, employment assistance, and information on veterans' benefits to help separating servicemembers transition to civilian life. Other employment and family support services are also available at the centers. Complete and reliable data on the use of all of the support services administered by the centers is not available, but efforts are underway to collect such data. Regarding TAP, DOD reported that 138,256 (90 percent) of eligible separating active duty servicemembers; 12,069 (57 percent) of National Guard members; and 13,630 (64 percent) of eligible Reserve service members participated in TAP in fiscal year 2018. Though not required, according to DOD officials, the agency collected data for fiscal year 2017 from each military branch of service on the employment readiness and other family support services provided at the centers. However, DOD officials stated that the centers were reporting the information differently. As a result, DOD is planning to revise the reporting requirements and method of data collection to gather more accurate information. The Coast Guard also collects TAP participation data, but GAO's recent prior work found that the data were unreliable and the agency has not yet implemented GAO's recommendation to establish policies and procedures to improve the reliability and completeness of the data. Coast Guard officials reported that they do not collect data on the other employment services provided at its centers beyond TAP, and the agency is not required to do so. DOD and the Coast Guard use several databases and documents to record servicemembers' training that may be applicable to future civilian employment. For example, the Verification of Military Experience and Training (VMET) is a key document that compiles information from the military branches' databases and lists the training servicemembers received and their military occupations in civilian terms. Agency officials said TAP guidance helps ensure that servicemembers have access to the VMET and similar documents, which the servicemember may then share with civilian entities, such as potential employers and state employment agencies. According to DOD officials, as part of completing TAP, servicemembers must confirm that they either have hard copies of their documents or understand how to access them online. According to these officials, DOD does not share servicemembers' information directly with external entities, unless requested by a servicemember. Why GAO Did This Study Approximately 200,000 servicemembers transition from military service to civilian life each year, according to DOD. Some veterans may experience difficulty finding civilian employment after leaving the service. For example, a veteran may be unfamiliar with effective job search strategies, and may not know how their military experience and training could apply to jobs in the civilian workforce. Federal law requires DOD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish permanent employment assistance centers at appropriate military and Coast Guard installations. In addition, under the law, DOD and DHS are required to take other steps that may help servicemembers apply their skills and experience to civilian employment. Specifically, the agencies must provide servicemembers a certification or verification of any job skills and experience acquired while on active duty that may be applicable to civilian employment and must develop procedures for sharing certain information with civilian entities, such as potential employers and state employment agencies. The conference report accompanying the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to review the employment assistance programs authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 1143. This report describes (1) the number and locations of employment assistance centers currently in operation, and what is known about how frequently servicemembers use them, and (2) how DOD and the Coast Guard record servicemembers' training that may be applicable to future civilian employment, and what procedures are in place to share such information with civilian entities. GAO reviewed a list of the military installations with employment assistance centers from DOD and DHS as well as agency documents on the use of employment services at the centers, and the various databases and documents used to record the training servicemembers received. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency policies for TAP. GAO also reviewed DOD data on TAP participation for fiscal 2018. Lastly, GAO interviewed officials from the Coast Guard, DHS, DOD, and the Department of Labor. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at 202-512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov.   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-320R What GAO Found The number of military spouses receiving tuition assistance through the My Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program declined more than 40 percent in recent years, from about 38,000 spouses in fiscal year 2011 to about 21,000 in fiscal year 2017. MyCAA provides up to $4,000 in tuition assistance for certificates, licenses, or associate's degrees to eligible spouses of servicemembers in certain paygrades to help improve employment opportunities. Data from the Department of Defense (DOD) showed that of the approximately 302,000 spouses in eligible paygrades in fiscal year 2017, about 7 percent received assistance, compared to about 10 percent of eligible spouses in fiscal year 2011. DOD officials said various factors may have contributed to the decline. For example, external trends such as decreases in the number of active duty forces and improvements in the labor market may have contributed to decreased enrollment. In addition, some eligible spouses did not participate in MyCAA because of personal or family obligations, according to DOD estimates from a 2015 survey of military spouses. Further, DOD officials said a lack of awareness about the MyCAA program has contributed to declining participation, which is consistent with 2015 DOD survey estimates that of eligible spouses who did not use MyCAA, about half were unaware of the program's existence. DOD officials said to increase awareness of the MyCAA program, they developed outreach materials such as content for DOD websites, webinars, e-newsletters, hard-copy mailers, and social media accounts. DOD also developed a formal communication strategy for outreach, which was still in its initial stages of implementation at the time of GAO's review. The strategy includes tailoring communications to spouses early in their careers and promoting awareness among employment readiness specialists at military installations. However, GAO found that until recently some outreach materials contained inaccurate website information. Specifically, DOD officials said they changed the MyCAA website address in July 2018, but as of early February 2019, the new address was not reflected in 10 MyCAA outreach materials that GAO reviewed, which still referred users to an inactive website address for enrolling in the program. During its review of GAO's draft report, DOD updated these materials to include corrected website information as of March 2019. Separately, technical difficulties such as outages have limited website access, and, as a result, DOD officials said some spouses could not register for classes on time and MyCAA enrollment declined. The website may also be difficult to access from certain devices, such as mobile devices, which are used by about 30 percent of those who visit the website, according to DOD officials. For example, users may receive an error message that their connection may not be private. Users may need to follow instructions to install a special DOD security certificate to proceed. Representatives of an advocacy group said spouses would likely leave the site rather than take the additional steps needed to bypass the warning. As of January 2019, DOD officials told GAO they are working to address these technical issues. Why GAO Did This Study For many of the approximately 612,000 spouses of active duty servicemembers, the special conditions of military life may make it difficult to start or maintain a career. Military spouses may have to move frequently to keep their families together when servicemembers are relocated. The MyCAA program seeks to help eligible military spouses improve their employment opportunities with tuition assistance for education and training. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 includes a provision for GAO to review MyCAA participation and awareness of the program. This report examines (1) what is known about participation rates among military spouses eligible for the MyCAA program, and (2) how DOD promotes awareness of and participation in the program. To determine what is known about participation rates, GAO reviewed annual DOD military family readiness reports for fiscal years 2011 through 2016, the years for which DOD reported MyCAA data. GAO also obtained DOD data on military personnel and on the MyCAA program for fiscal year 2017, the most recent available. To identify potential factors affecting participation, GAO reviewed data from DOD's 2015 Survey of Active Duty Spouses, the most recent survey available, and interviewed DOD officials. To identify DOD efforts to promote the program, GAO reviewed outreach materials, analyzed the MyCAA website as of February 2019 using a web-scraping program, and interviewed DOD officials. GAO assessed DOD's MyCAA website content against relevant standards for information quality of federal websites. GAO also interviewed representatives of three military family advocacy groups selected on the basis of relevant research they conducted, recommendations by other groups, or their involvement in DOD's Spouse Ambassador Network. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov. Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-395SP What GAO Found In April 2018, GAO identified 6 priority open recommendations for the Department of Labor (DOL). Since then, DOL has implemented 2 of those recommendations. To address one of these recommendations, the agency took action to strengthen the fertilizer industry's compliance with regulations to reduce the potential for related future catastrophic incidents involving hazardous chemicals. To implement another recommendation, DOL took steps to establish a more coordinated strategic approach among federal agencies to monitor and enforce free trade agreement (FTA) labor provisions, improving the U.S. government's capacity to hold FTA partners accountable for compliance with labor provisions. In March 2019, GAO identified 2 additional open priority recommendations for DOL, bringing the total number to 6. These recommendations involve the following areas: stronger protections for wage earners; potential reductions in improper payments; and better protections for retirees. DOL's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-200 What GAO Found The number of federal employment and training (E&T) programs and program obligations have declined since GAO's 2011 report. In that review, GAO identified 47 E&T programs and found that 44 had overlap with at least one other program in that they provided similar services to a similar population. In fiscal year 2017, the most recent year data are available, GAO identified 43 E&T programs, or 4 fewer than in 2011 (see figure). From fiscal year 2009 to 2017, federal agencies' annual obligations for E&T programs decreased from about $20 billion to $14 billion. GAO analysis of survey data found the decrease in obligations was largely due to the expiration of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which had provided additional funding for selected E&T programs during and after the Great Recession. Employment and Training Programs by Agency, Fiscal Year 2017 Survey results from federal administrators of the 43 E&T programs show that the programs continue to span nine agencies and generally overlap by providing similar services, such as employment counseling and assessment services (39 of 43) and job readiness training (38 of 43). Further, programs targeting a specific population, such as Native Americans, veterans, or youth, also provided similar services. In some cases, such overlap may be appropriate or beneficial, but it may also suggest opportunities for greater efficiency. Almost all (38 of 43) E&T programs reported at least one action to manage fragmentation or overlap, such as co-locating services and sharing information. However, the agencies were not able to consistently provide information on the results of these actions and few evaluations encompassed multiple programs. Among studies GAO identified, six examined more than one E&T program, but only one assessed how any coordinated activities benefited the population served. None of the six studies focused on Native Americans, youth, or refugees. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) encourages agencies to conduct evaluations, and specifically requires the Department of Labor (DOL) to publish a 5-year plan describing certain E&T priorities, consistent with the purpose of aligning and coordinating certain programs. While DOL reported it took some steps, it continues to lack a strategic plan for E&T evaluations over a multi-year period. As a result, DOL does not know whether actions to manage overlap are successful. Why GAO Did This Study Federally funded employment and training (E&T) programs help job seekers enhance their job skills, identify job opportunities, and obtain employment. In 2011, GAO identified overlap and fragmentation among E&T programs administered by nine federal agencies. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) was enacted in 2014, in part, to improve coordination and integration among these programs. This report examines (1) how the number of and obligations for federal E&T programs have changed since GAO's 2011 review, (2) the extent to which E&T programs continue to provide similar services to similar populations and examples of potential effects, and (3) the extent to which agencies have taken actions to address previously identified fragmentation and overlap among E&T programs and what agencies have learned about the results. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed E&T program administrators, reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed federal agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL, in consultation with other federal agencies, develop and publish a multi-year strategic plan for its evaluations of employment and training that includes assessing the completeness and results of efforts to coordinate among E&T programs. DOL agreed with our recommendation. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-257 What GAO Found Although existing federal data provide useful information on the U.S. workforce, they do not identify the causes of shifts in employment. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether changes are due to firms adopting advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robots (see photo), or other unrelated factors. In lieu of such data, GAO analyzed employment trends and characteristics of jobs that selected researchers identified as susceptible to automation, and found that: industries with a greater proportion of jobs susceptible to automation were more likely to have experienced growth in tech jobs (i.e., computing, engineering, and mathematics) from 2010 to 2016—possibly an indicator of industries preparing to adopt advanced technologies; occupations susceptible to automation and industries with a greater share of these jobs did not experience meaningfully higher job loss rates in this period, though it could be too soon to observe these effects; and certain groups, such as workers with no college education and Hispanic workers, tended to hold jobs susceptible to automation in 2016, and thus could be disproportionately affected by changes if they occur. Example of an Advanced Technology: A Collaborative Robot in the Workplace The Department of Labor (DOL) has a role in tracking changes in the U.S. workforce, but the data it collects related to the workforce effects of advanced technologies are limited. DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) identifies occupations projected to experience staffing pattern changes and the most significant causes, such as use of robotics, but its efforts are not designed to capture all instances of changes due to advanced technologies. DOL's Occupational Information Network program also collects data on tasks and technologies in occupations, such as robotics, but it was not designed to track changes over time. According to BLS, these efforts and other data they collect provide some, but not all, of the information required to identify and systematically track the impact of automation on the workforce. Without comprehensive data that link technological changes to shifts in the workforce, DOL lacks a valuable tool for ensuring that programs it funds to support workers are aligned with local labor market realities, and employers and job seekers need to rely on other sources of information to decide what training to offer or seek. The Department of Commerce's Census Bureau (Census) has started tracking technology adoption and resulting workforce effects in the new Annual Business Survey, which was administered for the first time in June 2018 with significant support from the National Science Foundation. This first survey asked firms about their use of advanced technologies and initial results will be available in late 2019. When the survey is next administered in summer 2019, Census plans to ask additional questions about firms' motivations for adopting technologies and effects the technologies might have on workers. This survey could provide information about the prevalence of technology adoption and workforce changes (e.g., declines in production workers or increases in supervisory workers), but it is not intended to provide information on the magnitude of workforce changes. Also, it remains unclear what limitations, if any, the survey data may have. According to officials from the 16 firms GAO interviewed, cost savings and other considerations led them to adopt advanced technologies, despite facing certain risks with the new technologies. Officials from these firms typically identified cost savings and improving job or product quality as primary motivations for adopting advanced technologies. For example, an automotive parts manufacturer said the firm adopted robots to reduce costs by using fewer workers. A door manufacturer said the firm installed two robots to lift heavy doors onto a paint line to reduce the number of worker injuries. A rubber stamp manufacturer said acquiring a robot (pictured above) allowed it to purchase and process raw materials instead of buying precut materials. Firm officials also identified risks related to adopting advanced technologies that could affect their return on investment, such as risks related to the reliability of technology and working with new tech developers. Among the firms GAO met with, officials described various ways technology adoption has affected their workforces. On one hand, officials at many firms said they needed fewer workers in certain positions after adopting technologies. The firms generally redeployed workers to other tasks, and in some cases, reduced the size of their workforces, typically through attrition. For example, a medical center GAO visited adopted autonomous mobile robots to transport linens and waste, among other things, which officials said eliminated 17 positions and shifted workers to other positions. On the other hand, officials at some firms said advanced technologies helped them increase competitiveness and add positions. An appliance manufacturer used advanced technologies to produce more of its own parts instead of relying on suppliers and, as a result, increased the number of production jobs, according to officials. Firm officials also noted that workers' tasks and skills have been changing due to advanced technologies (see figure). Workers who can adapt to new roles may experience positive effects, such as work that is safer, while those who cannot adapt may be negatively affected. Illustration of Changes to a Worker's Tasks after a Firm Integrates a Robot Why GAO Did This Study Advanced technologies—including artificial intelligence and robotics—are continually changing and emerging. While robots have existed for decades, modern robots may be equipped with learning capabilities that enable them to perform an expansive array of tasks. Advanced technologies are likely to affect the U.S. workforce by enabling firms to automate certain work tasks. Questions exist about how prepared federal agencies are to monitor workforce changes, promote economic growth, and support workers who may be negatively affected by automation. GAO was asked to examine workforce issues related to the adoption of advanced technologies. This report examines (1) what is known about how the adoption of advanced technologies affects the U.S. workforce ; (2) federal efforts to track these effects; (3) considerations that led selected firms to adopt advanced technologies and the risks they faced; and (4) ways technology adoption has affected the workforce at selected firms. GAO identified available federal workforce data, analyzed the extent to which those data could identify and measure workforce effects due to advanced technologies, reviewed selected research, and analyzed federal data on occupations susceptible to automation. GAO used data from the American Community Survey (2010-2016), the Current Population Survey's Displaced Worker Supplement (2016), and the Occupational Employment Statistics (2017). GAO met with 16 firms that are using advanced technologies in their operations and seven firms that develop advanced technologies, and interviewed managers and workers, and observed firms' use of technologies. The selected firms varied in size, industry sector, types of technologies used, and geographic location. Findings from discussions with the fims are not generalizable, but provide illustrative examples about the adoption of advanced technologies. GAO interviewed officials from federal agencies, including Commerce and DOL, academic researchers, economists, labor union officials, industry association officials, officials from state economic development associations, and other knowledgeable individuals. GAO also reviewed relevant academic work. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL develop ways to use existing or new data collection efforts to identify and systematically track the workforce effects of advanced technologies. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendation, and plans to identify and recommend data collection options to fill gaps in existing information about how the workplace is affected by new technologies, automation, and artificial intelligence. DOL also stated that it will continue coordinating with the Census Bureau on research activities in this area. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.     Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-398T What GAO Found In November 2017, GAO reported that overall management representation in the financial services industry increased marginally for minorities and remained unchanged for women from 2007 to 2015. Similar trends also occurred at the senior-level management of these firms. For example, women represented about 29 percent of senior-level managers throughout this time period. As shown below, representation of minorities in senior management increased slightly, but each racial/ethnic group changed by less than 1 percentage point. The diversity of overall management also varied across the different sectors of the financial services industry. For example, the banking sector consistently had the greatest representation of minorities in overall management, whereas the insurance sector consistently had the highest proportion of women in overall management. Senior-Level Management Representation of Minorities in the Financial Services Industry, 2007 and 2015 Note: The “Other” category includes Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaska Native, and “two or more races.” As GAO reported in November 2017, potential employees for the financial services industry, including those that could become managers, come from external and internal pools that are diverse. For example, the external pool included those with undergraduate or graduate degrees, such as a Master of Business Administration. In 2015, one-third of the external pool were minorities and around 60 percent were women. The internal talent pool for potential managers included those already in professional positions. In 2015, about 28 percent of professional positions in financial services were held by minorities and just over half were held by women. Representatives of financial services firms and other stakeholders GAO spoke to for its November 2017 report described challenges to recruiting and retaining members of racial/ethnic minority groups and women. They also identified practices that could help address those challenges. For example, representatives from several firms noted that an effective practice is to recruit and hire students from a broad group of schools and academic disciplines. Some firms also described establishing management-level accountability to achieve workforce diversity goals. Firm representatives and other stakeholders agreed that it is important for firms to assess data on the diversity of their employees but varied in their views on whether such information should be shared publicly. Why GAO Did This Study The financial services industry is a major source of employment that affects the economic well-being of its customers and the country as a whole. As the makeup of the U.S. workforce continues to diversify, many private sector organizations, including those in the financial services industry, have recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining minorities and women in key positions to improve business or organizational performance and better meet the needs of a diverse customer base. However, questions remain about the diversity of the workforce in the financial services industry. This statement is based on GAO's November 2017 report on changes in management-level diversity and diversity practices in the financial services industry. This statement summarizes (1) trends in management-level diversity in the financial services industry, (2) trends in diversity among potential talent pools, and (3) challenges financial services firms identified in trying to increase workforce diversity and practices they have used to address those challenges. For more information, contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz at (202) 512-8678 or GarciaDiazD@gao.gov. Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-235 What GAO Found Some selected companies with Department of Defense (DOD) manufacturing or construction contracts in fiscal year 2017 were previously cited for serious safety or health violations, according to GAO's analysis of federal data. Of the 192 companies with DOD contracts GAO selected for review, 106 had been inspected by the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or state occupational safety and health agencies during fiscal years 2013 through 2017. These inspections resulted in 83 companies being cited for at least one violation, including 52 with at least one serious violation (see figure). However, available data do not allow a determination of whether these violations occurred during work on a DOD contract because OSHA inspection data do not include that information. Number of Selected Defense Contractors Previously Cited for Occupational Safety or Health Violations, Based on Inspections Conducted from FY 2013 to 2017 The incidence of violations among all inspected companies with DOD contracts cannot be determined because OSHA does not require its staff to obtain and enter a corporate identification number in its inspection data, which is needed to match contracting data to inspection data. As a result, OSHA's data do not consistently include these numbers, and users of OSHA's website cannot use these numbers to search for companies' previous violations. According to federal internal control standards, management should share the quality information necessary to achieve the entity's objectives. Unless OSHA explores the feasibility of requiring a corporate identification number in its inspection data, website users will likely have difficulty obtaining accurate information on individual companies' previous violations. DOD contracting officials have opportunities during the acquisition process to address contractor workplace safety and health. For example, before awarding certain types of contracts, officials may consider workplace safety and health information when they evaluate prospective contractors' performance on past contracts. However, the past performance information that is available for officials to consider varies by DOD component. One component has a practice of requiring construction contractors to be rated on workplace safety at the completion of the contract, but DOD does not require a safety performance rating department-wide. As a result, contracting officials in other components may lack readily accessible information on contractors' past safety performance, and DOD may miss opportunities to consider safety concerns when awarding new contracts, particularly those in high-risk industries with relatively high rates of occupational injuries, such as manufacturing and construction. Why GAO Did This Study DOD is the largest contracting agency in the federal government, obligating about $320 billion for contracts in fiscal year 2017. Some DOD contracts—including some in the manufacturing and construction industries—involve work that can be dangerous, and questions have been raised about working conditions for these workers. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to the safety and health records of DOD contractors. This report examines: (1) the incidence of prior serious safety or health violations among selected companies with DOD manufacturing and construction contracts, and (2) how DOD and selected DOD components address contractor workplace safety and health during the acquisition process. GAO matched federal contracting data for fiscal year 2017 to OSHA inspection data for fiscal years 2013-2017 (most recent available); interviewed officials from OSHA, DOD, selected military departments, and selected DOD components; reviewed documentation from six selected DOD contract files; and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, policy, and guidance. What GAO Recommends GAO is making one recommendation to OSHA and two recommendations to DOD to enhance available information on contractor workplace safety. OSHA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation, but planned to take action to address it. DOD agreed with the recommendations. For more information, contact William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov, or Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov. Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-273R What GAO Found The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) periodically collects data on and measures contingent, alternative, and electronically-mediated workers in the Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) of the Current Population Survey (CPS). BLS broadly defines 1) contingent workers as those with temporary employment; 2) alternative workers as those who are independent contractors, on-call workers, temporary help agency workers, and workers provided by a contract firm; and 3) electronically-mediated workers as those who obtain employment through mobile applications (apps) and websites that both connect workers with customers and arrange payment for tasks. Other researchers refer to these groups as gig employment. For this report, GAO combines these groups comprehensively as nontraditional employment. BLS measured contingent and alternative workers five times from 1995 through 2005. After a 12-year hiatus, BLS replicated the 2005 survey in May 2017 and found a smaller percentage of contingent workers (3.8 percent) than in the 2005 survey (4.1 percent). Several companies that rely on electronically-mediated workers, or employment found through websites and mobile apps, such as drivers for a ride-share company, have been established since 2008. To better measure electronically-mediated employment, BLS added four questions to the May 2017 CWS. However, according to BLS, the data from these questions required recoding, i.e. manually adjusting the data, to provide an accurate measure, but acknowledged that this is still an area for additional exploration. BLS officials stated that they are conducting additional research as summarized in the table below.  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Reported Steps to Address Data Limitations Regarding Nontraditional Workers Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) areas for additional research Reported steps being taken According to officials we interviewed and documentation we reviewed:    • CWS only measures workers’ main jobs for contingent and alternative employment, thus potentially missing some nontraditional workers.   • CWS only asks respondents about their work in the past week and may not capture supplemental and occasional work.   BLS is currently working with stakeholders on CWS questions that will better capture nontraditional employment, including:   • contracting with the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to evaluate the CWS and other measures, and consider the factors that could drive design of a new supplement; and    • planning, as part of the contract, a CNSTAT-hosted panel of experts, a public workshop, and a report with objectives for CWS’s measurements of contingent and alternative employment workers as well as insights on the electronically-mediated economy.   CWS’s added questions regarding electronically-mediated employment resulted in a large number of false positive answers, according to BLS officials.a BLS officials said after manually adjusting the data to correct for the false positives, the questions regarding electronically-mediated employment provide an accurate measure. BLS officials said they plan to perform additional research before administering the questions again. Sources: GAO’s interviews of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) officials and review of BLS documents. a False positives are when people responded "yes" to the questions regarding electronically-mediated employment when the description of job duties and employers was incompatible with electronically-mediated work Why GAO Did This Study The nature of employment for many U.S. workers is changing. BLS data show millions of workers no longer hold traditional, full-time, year-round jobs. Since 2008, several companies have been established that rely on nontraditional employment arrangements with workers who typically use electronically-mediated platforms such as websites and apps to secure work. BLS data on nontraditional workers in the May 2017 CWS estimated that the percent of contingent workers declined amid a rise in electronically-mediated platforms for securing work. This led researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers to question whether this segment of the workforce is being accurately measured. GAO was asked to review BLS's measures of nontraditional workers and their accuracy. This report describes (1) how BLS defines and measures contingent, alternative, and electronically-mediated employment workers in the CWS and other BLS data sets; and (2) what limitations of the CWS BLS has identified and what steps BLS has taken to address them. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed technical documentation and reports, and interviewed officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is not making recommendations in this report. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7512 or Brownbarnesc@gao.gov or Oliver M. Richard at (202) 512-8424 or Richardo@gao.gov.  Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-97R What GAO Found GAO identified 45 federal programs and one tax expenditure to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. Eleven federal agencies administer these programs, usually independently of one another. GAO also identified one tax expenditure administered by the Department of the Treasury that exempts GI Bill benefits from federal taxation. A few programs are administered primarily by a single agency with assistance from another federal agency. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program, but the Department of Labor (DOL) plays an integral role in delivering services and the two agencies coordinate training and outreach efforts, according to agency officials. Four of the 45 programs we identified are jointly administered by multiple agencies. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) Transition Assistance Program is jointly administered by DOD, VA, DOL, the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration and the United States Coast Guard, which represents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Why GAO Did This Study The federal government’s commitment to those serving in the military includes assisting them in pursuing education and employment skills to help them succeed in the civilian workforce. In turn, this helps attract, develop, and sustain the nation’s all-volunteer military force. This investment in servicemembers continues after they leave military service and includes members of their families whose lives are also affected by their loved one’s transition to the civilian workforce. Moreover, multiple federal agencies administer the programs, both independently and together, to provide education and employment assistance, including help with self-employment, to servicemembers, veterans, and their families.    The conference report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to assess the panoply of benefits and programs available government-wide to separating servicemembers intended to provide the skills and education necessary for such members to achieve meaningful and fulfilling employment in their civilian lives.  This report provides a comprehensive inventory of the federal programs GAO identified as providing such assistance to servicemembers, veterans, and their families, including information from the administering agencies on who is eligible to receive services, the programs’ objectives, and the available services. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-90 What GAO Found The Department of Labor (DOL), from 2012 through 2017, reopened more than 7,000 compensation claims by contracted workers with illnesses resulting from exposure to toxins at Department of Energy (Energy) worksites. Of these reopened claims, 69 percent were approved for compensation (see figure). Claims can be reopened for various reasons, including new information on toxic substances and associated illnesses or new evidence provided by a claimant. According to DOL's Office of the Ombudsman officials, some claims may have been denied as a result of claimants not understanding the evidence required to support their claim. Moreover, the Ombudsman's two most recent reports in 2015 and 2016 found DOL's letters to claimants requesting additional evidence or informing them of the final decision did not clearly explain the specific evidence needed or why previously submitted evidence was deemed insufficient. GAO's previous work also found deficiencies in the quality of a sample of DOL's written communication with claimants. DOL has provided training to claims examiners on how to write clearly in correspondence and plans to assess the training. The assessment is an opportunity for DOL to better understand why some claimants remain confused about needed evidence and could help DOL target its training resources more effectively. Outcome of Most Recently Reopened Compensation Claims by Energy Contracted Employees, 2012 through 2017 Note: ”Closed” claims are no longer active and “other” includes those with approvals for at least one claimed illness combined with other outcomes. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. The Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (Advisory Board) recommended in 2016 and 2018 that DOL incorporate additional sources of information on toxic substances and associated illnesses into the database it uses to help determine eligibility for claims compensation. While DOL noted that certain additional data sources might be useful, it has not added all of the recommended data sources. The Advisory Board was created to provide technical advice to DOL on its database, among other things. Why GAO Did This Study For decades, Energy, its predecessor agencies, and contractors employed thousands of employees in hazardous work in nuclear weapons production, exposing many employees to toxic substances. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, administered by DOL, provides compensation for illnesses linked to exposures. Since 2004, DOL has provided about $4.4 billion to eligible employees and their survivors. GAO was asked to review aspects of the claims process for contracted employees. GAO examined (1) the number and outcome of compensation claims for illnesses resulting from exposure to toxins that DOL has reopened since 2012, and (2) the Advisory Board's advice to DOL on the scientific soundness of its database on toxins and illnesses, and DOL's responses. GAO analyzed DOL claims data for 2012—when a new data system was introduced— through 2017 and assessed their reliability. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and DOL procedures, and Advisory Board documents and interviewed DOL officials, Advisory Board members, experts, and a claimant advocate. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL ensure any assessment of its staff training efforts considers claimants' challenges with understanding DOL's communications on evidence for claims. DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation except to note that it plans to focus its training on such topics as quality of written communications and assess its training efforts. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov. Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-26 What GAO Found The number of working children has fluctuated with the economy since 2003. An estimated 3.3 million children aged 15 to 17 worked in the summer months of 2003, and the number of working children reached a low of 1.9 million by 2011. It then increased to 2.5 million by 2017, but has not returned to its pre-recession level, as shown below. GAO's analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor's (DOL) Current Population Survey data found that non-agricultural industries employed an estimated 2.5 million working children aged 15 to 17 in the summer months of 2017. Further, GAO found that the leisure and hospitality industry employed the largest number of children. Estimated Number of Working Children Aged 15 to 17 in the United States, 2003 to 2017 Since 2003, the majority of work-related child fatalities were in agriculture, and while available data are incomplete, they indicate that work-related injuries have declined. Although agriculture employs a small percentage of working children, DOL data indicate that from 2003 to 2016, the year for which the most recent data are available, over half of the 452 work-related fatalities among children were in agriculture. Also, according to DOL estimates, the number of work-related injuries and illnesses to children has declined, but these estimates do not include certain populations. While DOL is conducting a pilot study to enhance its work-related injury and illness data, this pilot does not include children, including those 14 or under. DOL has not evaluated the feasibility of measuring this population. As a result, DOL is missing opportunities to more accurately quantify injuries to children, which could better inform its compliance and enforcement efforts. DOL's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) uses a strategic enforcement approach to oversee compliance with the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and collaborates within DOL to exchange information on potential violations. WHD officials told GAO that their enforcement and compliance efforts include outreach to industries with vulnerable workers, including children. However, WHD has not developed metrics for child labor-related outreach in agriculture. Federal internal control standards state that management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks, such as by defining objectives in measurable terms. Without such metrics, WHD may not be effectively addressing the risks faced by children working in agriculture. Why GAO Did This Study Children aged 17 and under in the United States work for various reasons: some are encouraged to work to develop independence and responsibility; others work because of financial need. At the same time, research suggests working children are at risk for work-related injuries and fatalities. GAO was asked to update its 2002 child labor report to discuss the current status of working children in the United States, including those working in agriculture. This report examines (1) children working in the United States since 2003, (2) work-related fatalities and injuries to such children for the period, and (3) how DOL oversees compliance with the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. GAO analyzed federal data from several sources, including DOL and other agencies; reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed officials from DOL, including staff in six WHD district offices that were selected based on factors such as investigations with at least one child labor violation, and all five regional offices. GAO also spoke with stakeholders knowledgeable about child labor, such as employer and employee labor groups. What GAO Recommends GAO is making four recommendations to DOL, including that DOL should evaluate the feasibility of measuring injuries and illnesses to certain worker populations, and establish metrics for child labor-related outreach in agriculture. DOL generally agreed with all four recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov or Steve Morris at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-502 What GAO Found Of the 74 state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies that responded to GAO's survey, most reported expanding services to help students with disabilities transition from school to work as required under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted in July 2014. Most state agencies reported serving more students and providing work-based learning experiences and other activities, referred to as pre-employment transition services (see figure). Number of Agencies That Reported Serving More Students Since July 2014 Note: There were 74 respondents. Totals do not sum to 74 because for each service one respondent reported decreases in the number of students served and the remainder either did not answer the question or responded “don't know.” State VR agencies reported two key challenges with implementing pre-employment transition services for students as required by WIOA. Spending reserved funds: States reported spending about $357 million out of the $465 million reserved for these services in fiscal year 2016. Education officials said that states had difficulty determining what expenditures were allowable, and some state officials said they would like more detailed information from Education. Education officials said they plan to clarify guidance but have no timeframe for providing further information, which would help states to better plan their use of reserved funds. Finalizing interagency agreements: Fewer than half the state VR agencies that responded to GAO's survey (34 of 74) reported updating their interagency agreement with their state's educational agency. Interagency agreements can help promote collaboration by, for example, establishing roles and responsibilities of each agency. Although Education offers technical assistance on interagency agreements, without increased efforts to raise awareness about the importance of these agreements and provide assistance to states where needed, Education may miss opportunities to help state VR and educational agencies efficiently and effectively coordinate services. In addition, WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices, and most VR agencies responding to GAO's survey (63 of 74) reported this would be useful. Education does not have a written plan or timeframe for identifying and disseminating best practices. As a result, Education may miss opportunities to help more students with disabilities successfully transition from school to work. Why GAO Did This Study WIOA requires states to reserve at least 15 percent of their total State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program funds to provide pre-employment transition services to help students with disabilities transition from school to work. GAO was asked to review how states were implementing these services. This report examines (1) steps states reported taking to implement pre-employment transition services, and (2) implementation challenges states reported and how Education has addressed them. GAO reviewed documents and funding data from Education, and federal laws and regulations; surveyed all 79 state VR agencies (74 responded); held discussion groups with representatives of 29 state VR agencies; and interviewed officials from Education and three states (Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland) GAO selected for variety in size and type of agencies, among other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that Education (1) establish timeframes for providing additional information on allowable expenditures, (2) take additional steps to assist states that have not updated and finalized their interagency agreements, and (3) develop a written plan with specific timeframes and activities for identifying and disseminating best practices. Education agreed with the first recommendation and disagreed with the other two. GAO revised the second recommendation and maintains that specific information is needed for the third, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-577 What GAO Found State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies reported expanding services for employers in order to promote hiring individuals with disabilities in mainstream employment (where they are integrated with employees without disabilities and earn competitive wages), but the Department of Education (Education) has not fully addressed related challenges. Most VR agencies in GAO's survey reported providing specific employer services under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (see figure). However, many agencies reported challenges meeting employers' needs and promoting mainstream employment. For example, some did not fully understand when they are allowed to help employed individuals with career advancement. Education has provided related guidance, including disseminating information at conferences. However, officials at two of three VR agencies GAO spoke with said more information would be helpful. Increasing access to this information may help more VR agencies understand when they have the option of using VR funds for such services. Types of Employer Services Provided by Most State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies Most VR agencies GAO surveyed reported increasing coordination with other workforce agencies, but some gaps exist in federal guidance intended to enhance coordination. Employers GAO spoke with cited challenges navigating workforce programs, yet few agencies reported documenting roles and responsibilities of the agencies they partner with to work with employers. While Education and the Department of Labor (DOL) have provided some related technical assistance, they have not provided examples of documentation of roles and responsibilities. GAO's prior work has found that such documentation can help improve coordination by clarifying who does what in a partnership. Education and DOL are piloting three measures of the effectiveness of workforce programs in serving employers: employer penetration (i.e., percentage of employers receiving a service), retention with the same employer, and repeat business customers. However, some VR agencies cited concerns with piloted measures, such as the employer penetration measure not being sufficiently linked to VR core program activities. Taking such concerns into account when finalizing performance measures may result in performance metrics and targets that encourage VR agencies to more effectively serve employers. Why GAO Did This Study The VR program, administered by Education and state VR agencies, helps people with disabilities obtain employment. In 2014, WIOA made changes to the VR program, increasing its focus on serving employers, promoting career advancement as part of the broader goal of mainstream employment, and coordinating with other workforce programs. GAO was asked to review the VR program under WIOA. This report examines (1) the steps VR agencies have taken under WIOA to work with employers and place individuals in mainstream employment, and the extent Education has addressed any challenges; (2) how VR agencies have coordinated with other workforce programs and the extent federal agencies have addressed any challenges; and (3) how federal agencies have measured state VR agencies' efforts to serve employers. GAO surveyed all 79 VR agencies (74 responded); conducted three discussion groups with 36 state VR officials and four with 29 employers that worked with VR; interviewed VR and other workforce officials in three states, selected for geographic dispersion, among other factors; and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. What GAO Recommends GAO is making seven recommendations, including improving information on career advancement and partnerships, and aligning performance measures with activities. DOL agreed, while Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, but said it will consider taking steps in response. For more information, contact Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-633 What GAO Found Nationwide, four key federally funded workforce programs helped states provide reemployment services, such as career counseling and job search assistance, to millions of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, according to data from July 2015 through June 2016, the most recent period available (see table). The six selected states GAO reviewed in-depth reported using these key programs to support their efforts to help claimants return to work. Selected state officials described skills assessments, job search assistance, and interview and resume workshops as the types of services they use to connect UI claimants to jobs quickly. Officials also described varying service delivery approaches, with some of the selected states emphasizing the use of online services, while others relied to a greater extent on in-person services. Key Federally Funded Workforce Programs Helping States Provide Reemployment Services to Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimants, July 2015 through June 2016 Program Services provided UI claimants served Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Non-training services, including career counseling, job listings, job search assistance, and referrals to employers 5 million participated Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Services including assessment of claimant's continued eligibility for UI and development of individual reemployment plan 1.1 million scheduled to receive services WIOAa Dislocated Worker Training, such as occupational skills training, and services, including career counseling and job search assistance 311,000 finished participating WIOAa Adult 299,000 finished participating Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor (DOL) data. I GAO-18-633. aWorkforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). According to a 2014 national questionnaire to states, most states used a statistical system to identify UI claimants who are most likely to exhaust their benefits and need assistance returning to work (known as profiling). Six of the nine states GAO reviewed used statistical systems and three used non-statistical approaches. GAO identified several concerns with the Department of Labor's (DOL) oversight and support of state UI profiling systems: Although a 2007 DOL-commissioned study found that some statistical systems may not perform well, DOL has not collected the information needed to identify states at risk of poor profiling system performance. Some selected states have faced technical challenges in implementing and updating their statistical systems. However, DOL does not have a process for identifying and providing technical assistance to states at risk of poor system performance or those facing technical challenges. Instead, it only provides assistance to those states that request it. While states have latitude to choose their preferred profiling approach, DOL's 1994 guidance encourages all states to use statistical systems. Because DOL has not updated this guidance to ensure that it clearly communicates all available profiling system options, some states may not be aware that they have greater flexibility in choosing an option that best suits their needs. Why GAO Did This Study In 2017, the UI program provided about $30 billion in temporary income support to 5.7 million claimants who became unemployed through no fault of their own. The federal government provides various resources states can use to help UI claimants achieve reemployment. GAO was asked to review how states identify and serve claimants who need such assistance. This report examines, among other things, (1) what key federal programs and approaches states used to help UI claimants return to work, and (2) how states used profiling systems to identify claimants who are most likely to exhaust their benefits and need assistance returning to work. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and guidance; analyzed the most recent available national data on UI claimant participation in key workforce programs, from July 2015 through June 2016; interviewed officials from DOL, six states with key reemployment practices, and three additional states with a variety of profiling practices; and reviewed national studies examining state profiling systems. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOL (1) systematically collect sufficient information to identify states at risk of poor profiling system performance, (2) develop a process for providing risk-based technical assistance to such states, and (3) update guidance to clarify state profiling options. DOL agreed with these recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-486 What GAO Found GAO's analysis of Department of Labor (DOL) data found that certain state administrative practices, such as reviewing a higher percentage of claimant-reported work search activities and frequent use of formal warnings, were associated with lower estimated work search overpayment rates for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. According to DOL data, 22 states were warning claimants after the first discovered occurrence of their failure to meet work search requirements (i.e., issuing formal warnings) rather than reporting that an overpayment was made, while the other states were reporting such cases as overpayments. In 2017, DOL determined that federal law does not permit states to use such policies. GAO's analysis of DOL data shows that in fiscal year 2017, estimated work search overpayments were nearly $1.4 billion (see fig.), but would have been an estimated $1.8 billion (+/-$0.2 billion) greater if states had not issued formal warnings and established overpayments. DOL officials told GAO in July 2017 that the agency would issue a letter to states informing them that federal law does not permit them to warn claimants instead of establishing an overpayment. To date, DOL has not issued the letter. Until DOL provides states with such notification, states may continue to report inconsistent information on overpayments. Estimated overpayments due to failure to meet search requirements State officials GAO interviewed reported using multiple approaches to address work search overpayments, including using their online systems that automate collecting information on claimants' work search activities; conducting audits of claimants work search activities beyond those required; and sending automated messages to claimants regarding their work search requirements. Officials said that their approaches encouraged claimants to conduct a more active work search and prevented work search overpayments in some cases. DOL monitors states' work search overpayment rate estimates and has helped states address such overpayments, but lacks clear procedures for how states should verify claimants' work search activities. DOL directs states to verify a “sufficient” number of work search activities during their audits but has not provided information on what is considered sufficient. DOL data show that some states did not review claimants' work search activities for a majority of audited cases. DOL officials said that the agency plans to clarify its procedures after issuing a letter about formal warnings. By clarifying these procedures, DOL will have greater assurance that states are complying with verification requirements. Why GAO Did This Study The UI program, which is overseen by DOL and administered by states, paid $30 billion to about 5.7 million individuals in 2017. Under federal law, to be eligible for benefits, individuals are generally required to actively search for work, but the specific work search requirements vary by state. Yet, states found that some benefits were overpaid to UI claimants who were ineligible because they were not meeting work search requirements. GAO was asked to review improper payments due to UI claimants' failure to actively search for work. Building on GAO's prior work (GAO-18-133R), this report examines (1) state administrative practices associated with work search overpayments; (2) selected states' approaches to address work search overpayments; and (3) DOL's oversight and support of states' efforts. GAO analyzed DOL data, including the results of state reviews of a representative random sample of UI payments made from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. GAO also reviewed UI information from six states selected for variation in work search requirements and overpayment rates, interviewed DOL and state officials, and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. What GAO Recommends GAO is making four recommendations to DOL, including that it provide states information about its determination that the use of state formal warning policies is no longer permissible and clarify its work search verification requirements. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendations and stated that it would take action to address them. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-475 What GAO Found Most states reported they were on target to meet the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act's (WIOA) requirement to spend 75 percent of their Program Year 2015 and 2016 youth grant funding to serve out-of-school youth, according to Department of Labor (DOL) data. Because deadlines had not arrived for the spending of state youth grant allotments for these program years, compliance could not be determined. Similarly, most local areas reported they were on track to meet the out-of-school youth spending requirement, as well as the requirement that 20 percent of local youth grant funds be spent on providing work experiences to youth. Through GAO's survey, many local areas reported it was not challenging or only slightly challenging to meet the spending requirements, but some reported experiencing greater challenges (see figure). Under WIOA, DOL does not collect local expenditure information, but states must monitor local areas' compliance while DOL monitors state oversight. DOL has taken some steps to determine whether states are carrying out their monitoring responsibilities, including limited on-site monitoring and ongoing dialogue with states. According to DOL officials, the agency's monitoring of the new requirements has thus far focused on providing technical assistance and guidance, but they reported plans for more formal compliance monitoring. Some Local Workforce Areas Reported Experiencing Greater Challenges in Meeting Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Spending Requirements Note: All percentage estimates in this figure have a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or fewer. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding and because a small number of survey respondents answered “don't know” or did not respond. Local areas reported in GAO's survey that they used a combination of strategies to meet the WIOA spending requirement for serving out-of-school youth and to address other related challenges. For example, many local areas reported suspending enrollment of in-school-youth to help meet the requirement to spend 75 percent of youth grant funds on out-of-school youth. In addition, local areas reported having taken steps to address challenges locating, retaining, and serving out-of-school youth in their WIOA-funded programs, including increasing their recruiting efforts and strengthening partnerships with other WIOA programs, state and local government agencies, and community-based organizations. To meet WIOA's 20 percent spending requirement for work experiences, local areas reported expanding work experience opportunities for youth, most commonly with temporary paid employment. An estimated 81 percent of local areas reported they paid youth participants' salaries, with most paying the entire salary. Many local areas also reported challenges, including youths' lack of job-readiness and employers' reluctance to hire WIOA participants. To address these challenges, local areas reported providing job-readiness training for youth and strengthening partnerships with employers. Why GAO Did This Study Approximately 4.6 million youth ages 16 to 24 were neither in school nor employed in 2016. WIOA, enacted in July 2014, provides, in part, grants to states and local areas to assist youth—particularly out-of-school youth—in accessing employment, education, and training services. It also emphasizes the provision of work experiences to in- and out-of-school youth. GAO was asked to review how states and local areas are using WIOA grants to serve youth. This report examines (1) what is known about states' and local areas' progress in meeting WIOA spending requirements for serving out-of-school youth and for providing youth with work experiences; (2) how local areas are addressing WIOA's emphasis on serving out-of-school youth and any challenges, and (3) how local areas are addressing WIOA's emphasis on youth work experiences and any challenges. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; interviewed DOL officials; analyzed DOL state level WIOA youth program expenditure data from program years 2015 and 2016, the most recent data available; surveyed a nationally representative sample of local workforce development areas; and visited nine local workforce development areas in three states selected for their relatively large WIOA Youth funding allotments and relatively high rates of out-of-school youth. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOL and the Department of Education provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which were incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Chelsa Gurkin at (202) 512-7215 or gurkinc@gao.gov. Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-482 What GAO Found Job Corps centers reported 13,673 safety and security incidents involving students from July 2016 to June 2017, according to GAO's analysis of the Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) data. Most reported incidents occurred onsite and involved recently enrolled male students under age 20. During that time, the program served about 79,000 students at 125 Job Corps centers, according to ETA officials. ETA's Office of Job Corps administers the program, which is the nation's largest residential, educational, and career and technical training program for low-income youth generally between the ages of 16 and 24. Drug-related incidents and assaults accounted for 48 percent of all reported incidents (see fig.). Types of Onsite and Offsite Safety and Security Incidents Involving Students Reported by Job Corps Centers from July 2016 to June 2017 Students generally felt safe at Job Corps centers, yet fewer felt safe in some situations, based on GAO's analysis of ETA's September 2016 and March 2017 Job Corps student satisfaction surveys. At least 70 percent of students reported that they felt safe on half of the 12 safety-related questions in the 49 question survey about their experiences in the Job Corps program; but fewer students reported feeling safe when asked if they were made to feel unimportant or if they heard students threaten each other. ETA plans to administer a new survey nationally by January 2019 that focuses solely on safety and security issues. ETA has initiated several actions to improve safety and security at Job Corps centers, but insufficient guidance for its monitoring staff and absence of a comprehensive plan for safety and security may put the success of these actions at risk. Among its actions, ETA adopted a new risk-based monitoring strategy to identify emerging problems at the centers. Officials GAO spoke with in five of ETA's regional offices said that the new strategy has improved monitoring, but that more guidance on how to interpret and apply safety and security policies is needed to promote consistency across centers. Also, ETA lacks a comprehensive plan linking its new efforts to an overall safety and security framework. ETA officials told GAO that limited staff capacity and lack of expertise have hindered their efforts in developing such a plan. Without a comprehensive plan, ETA runs the risk that its new efforts will not be successful. Why GAO Did This Study Deficiencies identified in multiple DOL Inspector General audits since 2009 and two student deaths in 2015 have raised concerns regarding the safety and security of Job Corps students. GAO was asked to review safety and security of students in the Job Corps program. GAO's June 2017 testimony summarized preliminary observations. This report further examines (1) the number and types of reported safety and security incidents involving Job Corps students; (2) student perceptions of their safety at Job Corps centers; and (3) the extent to which ETA has taken steps to address safety and security at Job Corps centers. GAO analyzed ETA's reported incident data for Job Corps centers from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. GAO also analyzed ETA's student survey data from the same period, reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed ETA officials at its national office and all six regions. GAO also visited two Job Corps centers that had different operators and at least 100 recent incidents. These two centers are not generalizable to all centers. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations to DOL, including that ETA develop additional monitoring guidance and a comprehensive plan for safety and security. DOL agreed with GAO's three recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-504T What GAO Found Overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and administered by states, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) programs served about 0.5 percent of the approximately 43.5 million SNAP recipients in an average month of fiscal year 2016, according to the most recent USDA data available. These programs are generally designed to help SNAP recipients increase their ability to obtain regular employment through services such as job search and training. Some recipients may be required to participate. According to USDA, about 14 percent of SNAP recipients were subject to work requirements in an average month of fiscal year 2016, while others, such as children and the elderly, were generally exempt from these requirements. States have flexibility in how they design their E&T programs. Over the last several years, states have 1) increasingly moved away from programs that mandate participation, 2) focused on serving able-bodied adults without dependents whose benefits are generally time-limited unless they comply with work requirements, and 3) partnered with state and local organizations to deliver services. USDA has taken steps to increase support and oversight of SNAP E&T since 2014, including collecting new data on participant outcomes from states. GAO has ongoing work reviewing SNAP E&T programs, including USDA oversight. USDA and the states partner to address issues that affect program integrity, including improper payments and fraud, and USDA has taken some steps to address challenges in these areas, but issues remain. Improper Payments. In 2016, GAO reviewed SNAP improper payment rates and found that states' adoption of program flexibilities and changes in federal SNAP policy in the previous decade, as well as improper payment rate calculation methods, likely affected these rates. Although USDA reported improper payment estimates for SNAP in previous years, USDA did not report an estimate for benefits paid in fiscal years 2015 or 2016 due to data quality issues in some states. USDA has since been working with the states to improve improper payment estimates for the fiscal year 2017 review. Recipient Fraud. In 2014, GAO made recommendations to USDA to address challenges states faced in combatting recipient fraud. For example, GAO found that USDA's guidance on the use of transaction data to uncover potential trafficking lacked specificity and recommended USDA develop additional guidance. Since then, USDA has provided technical assistance to some states, including on the use of data analytics. GAO has ongoing work reviewing states' use of data analytics to identify SNAP recipient fraud. Retailer Trafficking. In 2006, GAO identified several ways in which SNAP was vulnerable to retailer trafficking—a practice involving the exchange of benefits for cash or non-food items. For example, USDA had not conducted analyses to identify high-risk retailers and target its resources. Since then, USDA has established risk levels for retailers based on various factors. GAO has ongoing work assessing how USDA prevents, detects, and responds to retailer trafficking and reviewing the usefulness of USDA's estimates of the extent of SNAP retailer trafficking. Why GAO Did This Study SNAP is the largest federally funded nutrition assistance program. In fiscal year 2017, it provided about $63 billion in benefits. USDA and the states jointly administer SNAP and partner to address issues that affect program integrity, including improper payments and fraud. GAO has previously reported on various aspects of SNAP, including state SNAP E&T programs, improper payment rates, recipient fraud, and retailer trafficking. This testimony discusses GAO's prior and ongoing work on (1) SNAP E&T programs, including program participants, design, and USDA oversight, and (2) USDA's efforts to address SNAP program integrity, including improper payments, as well as recipient and retailer fraud. As part of its ongoing work on SNAP E&T programs, GAO analyzed E&T expenditures and participation data from fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the most recent data available; reviewed relevant research from USDA; and interviewed USDA and selected state and local officials. The prior work discussed in this testimony is based on four GAO products on E&T programs (GAO-03-388), improper payments (GAO-16-708T), recipient fraud (GAO-14-641), and retailer trafficking (GAO-07-53). Information on the scope and methodology of our prior work is available in each product. What GAO Recommends GAO is not making new recommendations. USDA generally concurred with GAO's prior recommendations. For more information, contact Kathryn Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Wed, 09 May 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-301 What GAO Found The National Mediation Board (NMB), which facilitates labor relations for railroads and airlines, has implemented five of the eight recommendations GAO made in its December 2013 and February 2016 reports (see table). The three remaining recommendations—on information security, information privacy, and rail grievance arbitration—are not yet fully implemented. Regarding information security, GAO found that NMB has made progress but is only partially following key practices. On information privacy, GAO found that NMB was following two of four key privacy practices but has not yet, among other things, assessed the privacy risks of its information systems. Finally, the agency has taken steps to track rail grievance arbitration cases, but still cannot perform needed analysis of the data. At the same time, NMB reports its backlog of these cases has grown from about 2,400 at the end of fiscal year 2011 to over 8,400 at the end of fiscal year 2017. While NMB has taken some steps to reduce this growing number of cases, it does not have a specific plan to address the backlog. Without such a plan, the backlog could continue to increase. Status of GAO's 2013 and 2016 Recommendations to NMB Recommendation Area Implemented Not Fully Implemented Strategic Plan X   Performance Measures X   Workforce Plan X   Audit Response X   Procurement X   Information Security   X Information Privacy   X Rail Grievance Arbitration   X Source: GAO analysis of National Mediation Board (NMB) documents | GAO 18-301 NMB also faces other management challenges. First, although federal employees may not use their public office for private gain, NMB does not have controls in place to ensure that this is followed. During this review, GAO found that a lack of internal controls may have permitted a former manager to represent himself as a government employee while conducting business for his private companies. GAO plans to refer the matter to the appropriate authority for further investigation. Second, NMB employees expressed concerns in a 2017 employee survey about issues such as promotions, training, and leadership. NMB officials said they have not yet taken actions in response to survey results or conducted an internal climate assessment, even though such actions were promised in NMB's strategic plan. Finally, some of NMB's travel and telework policies are inconsistent with federal law and not consistently enforced. For example, NMB management approved rental of a luxury car in one case, which may have been prohibited by federal regulations. Oversight of a cognizant Inspector General (IG), as suggested in GAO's 2013 report, might have prevented or minimized many of the issues GAO identified. NMB recently established an agreement with the National Labor Relations Board IG to operate a telephone fraud hotline; however, ongoing oversight is needed to identify and assist NMB with addressing agency challenges. Why GAO Did This Study NMB was established under the Railway Labor Act to facilitate labor relations for railroads and airlines by mediating and arbitrating labor disputes and overseeing union elections. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 included a provision for GAO to evaluate NMB programs and activities every 2 years. GAO's previous reports, issued in December 2013 and February 2016, included eight recommendations for NMB based on assessments of policies and processes in several management and program areas. This third report examines the (1) progress NMB has made to fully implement past GAO recommendations, and (2) challenges NMB faces in managing its operations. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and NMB documents, such as its procurement and travel policies; examined the results of a 2017 employee survey; interviewed NMB officials; and investigated a potential conflict of interest at NMB. What GAO Recommends To improve its operations, NMB should develop and execute a plan to address the rail arbitration case backlog; follow up on employee survey results, including conducting an organizational climate assessment; and implement internal controls to ensure that employee requests for outside employment, travel, and telework comply with federal law. NMB agreed with these recommendations, and said that it is taking actions to address them. NMB also said that it is taking actions to fully implement the remaining recommendations from GAO's 2013 and 2016 reports. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 -0400 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-171 What GAO Found Federal agencies' efforts to implement Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requirements related to regulations, program performance, and state planning aligned with most of the leading collaboration practices that GAO identified in its prior work, but could be enhanced in two areas. Officials from the Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (Education), and Health and Human Services (HHS) reported having taken actions consistent with five of seven leading collaboration practices (see table). Table: Examples of Federal Agencies' Actions That Were Consistent with GAO's Identified Leading Collaboration Practices Leading Collaboration Practices Examples of Actions Taken by the Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (Education), and Health and Human Services (HHS) to Implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Defining Outcomes and Accountability Implemented outcomes and time frames required by WIOA by establishing interim outcomes and deadlines. The agencies also identified additional outcomes and tracked their progress, for example, by developing work plans with deadlines for specific tasks. Bridging Organizational Cultures Shared information about differences across agencies in programs and processes. For example, identified each agency's existing process for reviewing and approving state plans before developing a joint process. Establishing and Sustaining Leadership Shared leadership of the collaboration by identifying a senior leader from each agency and workgroup co-chairs from each agency. These workgroup leadership roles are generally a core job responsibility. Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities Developed a collaboration structure, including roles and responsibilities of interagency workgroups, and a joint decision-making process involving senior leaders from each agency. Including Relevant Participants Involved relevant participants from DOL, Education, HHS, and other agencies as needed. Participants committed staff resources to help carry out interagency workgroup activities. Source: GAO and analysis of information from DOL, Education, and HHS officials. | GAO-18-171 However, GAO noted that the agencies' efforts could be enhanced in two areas: Resources. The agencies have leveraged various resources, but have not fully identified the resources needed to address technology challenges. Online collaboration tools could help address these challenges, and officials said they have used them to a limited extent based on their business needs. DOL and Education officials said the agencies are exploring options for using online tools to a greater extent, but have not fully identified their technology needs or which tools would best meet these needs. Without doing so, the agencies may be missing opportunities to collaborate more efficiently and effectively. Written agreements. The agencies have not formally documented their agreements about how they are collaborating or sharing resources. Officials said they have not formally documented their agreements because they believed it was not necessary, and they faced time constraints. However, the agencies have experienced turnover among senior officials, and without documentation of how they are collaborating, it may take longer for newly appointed officials to become familiar with and implement collaboration efforts. In addition, without documenting decisions about how they share resources, the agencies may be missing opportunities to assess whether their approach could be enhanced. Why GAO Did This Study WIOA was enacted in 2014 and requires DOL, Education, and HHS to collaborate on an ongoing basis to implement the law. WIOA requirements involving interagency collaboration include issuing regulations, developing a common performance system, and overseeing state planning. In prior work, GAO identified leading practices that can enhance and sustain federal collaborative efforts. Given the ongoing collaboration required by WIOA, GAO was asked to review the collaborative approaches the agencies have used to implement the law. This report examines the extent to which federal agencies' efforts to implement certain WIOA requirements have aligned with leading collaboration practices. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. GAO also interviewed officials from DOL, Education, and HHS who led the overall collaboration effort, gathered information from interagency workgroups, and reviewed relevant documentation. In addition, GAO interviewed Office of Management and Budget staff regarding their role in this collaboration. GAO assessed the agencies' efforts against leading collaboration practices and federal internal control standards. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 6 recommendations to DOL, Education, and HHS to better address their resource needs and document their agreements. HHS agreed with GAO's recommendations. DOL and Education neither agreed nor disagreed but planned to take actions to address the recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes, at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-373T What GAO Found The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' (CNMI) inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) has grown each year since 2012, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In 2016, the CNMI's GDP rose by 29 percent, partly as a result of construction investment. While tourism has fluctuated in recent years, visitor arrivals in the CNMI rose by nearly a third from 2016 to 2017. After nearly a decade of annual decline, the total number of workers employed in the CNMI increased from 2013 through 2016, according to the most recent available CNMI tax data. Foreign workers made up 53 percent of those employed in 2016, compared with roughly 75 percent in 2002. GAO's preliminary analysis indicates that the number of approved CNMI-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) permits for foreign workers in the CNMI grew from over 7,100 for fiscal year 2012 to nearly 13,000 for fiscal year 2017. In addition, GAO identified trends in the country of birth, occupation, and employment duration of foreign workers with CW-1 permits approved for fiscal years 2012 through 2018. Workers born in the Philippines received the highest number of CW-1 permits each year. As of January 2018, 750 CW-1 permits had been granted to construction workers for fiscal year 2018—a 75 percent decline from the prior fiscal year. GAO estimated that approximately 2,350 foreign workers with approved CW-1 permits maintained continuous employment in the CNMI from fiscal year 2014 through January 2018. About 80 percent of these workers were born in the Philippines. Numerical Limits on CNMI-Only Transitional Worker Permits Established by DHS and Proposed by Senate Bill S. 2325, Fiscal Years 2011–2030 Notes: Numerical limits are set on a fiscal year basis. Under current law, a transition period is set to end on Dec. 31, 2019, or 3 months into fiscal year 2020; after this date, no permits shall be valid. In November 2017, DHS set the limit for permits for fiscal years 2018 through the end of the program. Under S. 2325, the transition period would be effective through Dec. 31, 2029, or 3 months into fiscal year 2030; after this date, no permits shall be valid. S. 2325 would require that the number of permits issued during fiscal year 2019 not exceed 13,000 and, starting in fiscal year 2020, not exceed a number 500 fewer than those issued during the immediately preceding fiscal year. The limits shown for S. 2325 assume that employers would petition for, and DHS would issue, the maximum number of available permits for fiscal year 2019 and for each subsequent year. Why GAO Did This Study Pub. L. No. 110-229, enacted in 2008, amended the U.S.-CNMI covenant to apply federal immigration law to the CNMI after a transition period. The law required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a temporary work permit program for foreign workers. DHS is required to decrease the number of permits issued annually, reducing them to zero by the end of the transition period, scheduled for December 31, 2019. To implement the law, DHS established a new work permit program in 2011. Under the program, foreign workers can obtain, through their employers, nonimmigrant CW-1 status that allows them to work in the CNMI. The law was amended in August 2017 to, among other things, restrict future permits for workers in construction and extraction occupations. Proposed legislation—Senate bill S. 2325—would, among other things, extend the transition period through December 31, 2029; increase the number of available permits from the 2018 level; and set required decreases in the annual numerical limit for the permits. (See figure for past numerical limits established by DHS and future limits proposed by S. 2325.) This testimony discusses (1) recent trends in the CNMI economy and (2) preliminary observations about the number of approved CW-1 permits and characteristics of permit holders, drawn from GAO's ongoing work. GAO updated information about the CNMI's economy that it reported in May 2017 (see GAO-17-437). GAO also analyzed data and documents from U.S. agencies and the CNMI government. For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-16 What GAO Found The Coast Guard, the only military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), investigated 2,101 commercial fishing vessel accidents between 2006 and 2015 that occurred in federal waters; however, because there are no reliable data on the total number of commercial fishing vessels that are actively fishing, rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities cannot be determined. Agencies, such as the Coast Guard, keep records of accidents, but without reliable data on active vessels, trend information cannot be determined. The Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service have separate efforts to collect data that could be used to develop an estimate of active commercial fishing vessels, but each agency is taking a different approach to do so. These and other agencies agreed that it is important to calculate rates to assess commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Establishing a mechanism—such as a working group—to coordinate efforts and collect reliable data on the number of active vessels and key characteristics, such as vessel age and length, would allow the agencies to do so in an efficient manner. Commercial Fishing Vessel While data on the costs to design, construct, and maintain classed vessels are limited, vessel owners, builders, and classification societies agree that classification increases costs and told GAO that the perceived costs of classing may affect vessel owners' decisions to purchase new vessels to avoid classification requirements. However, they also agree that classification is one of many factors that contribute to safety. The alternative-to-class approach is more flexible than classing—for example, in its use of marine surveyors to verify vessel construction. Industry stakeholders and GAO's analysis, however, identified numerous questions and uncertainties regarding implementation of the approach, including licensing requirements for naval engineers and architects. The Coast Guard has not issued regulations or guidance to address these issues on the alternative-to-class approach due, in part, to its ongoing efforts to issue regulations to implement safety-related legislation enacted in 2010 and 2012. However, without specific written procedures—either in the form of regulations or guidance—the Coast Guard cannot ensure consistent implementation of the alternative-to-class approach. Why GAO Did This Study Commercial fishing has one of the highest death rates of any industry in the United States. Fishing vessels that are at least 50 feet long and were built after 2013 are required by law to be built and maintained to rules developed by a classification society, a process known as classing. Congress created an alternative-to-class approach in 2016, allowing certain size vessels to be designed and built to equivalent standards in lieu of classing. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review the costs and benefits of classing commercial fishing vessels. This report assesses (1) known numbers and rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities; (2) what is known about the costs, effects, and benefits of constructing and maintaining classed vessels; and (3) how the alternative-to-class approach compares with classing. GAO collected data on vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities; interviewed vessel owners, builders, classification societies, Coast Guard, and other agencies; and studied classing costs. What GAO Recommends Among GAO's recommendations, the Coast Guard and other agencies should form a working group to collect reliable data on the number of active fishing vessels. The Coast Guard should also issue regulations or guidance to address questions about the alternative-to-class approach. The agencies generally concurred with the recommendations, but DHS did not concur that the Coast Guard assess vessel accident rates. GAO revised this recommendation to allow the Coast Guard or another appropriate agency to do the assessment. For more information, contact Timothy J. DiNapoli at (202) 512-4841 or dinapolit@gao.gov. Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 -0500 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-133R What GAO Found Department of Labor (DOL) data show that some states have formal warning policies that allow Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants to receive benefits after the first discovered occurrence of their failing to meet work search requirements while most states do not have such policies. As a result, states are inconsistent in whether they report such benefit payments as overpayments, which has an impact on DOL's reported improper payment rate for the UI program. According to DOL officials, 18 states and the District of Columbia have formal warning policies and, therefore, have not counted as overpayments cases in which claimants who failed to search for work in one week were provided benefits. In contrast, DOL officials noted that 34 states do not have formal warning policies. Accordingly, all cases in which those states find that a claimant was provided benefits despite not having met work search requirements are counted as overpayments and are factored into DOL's reported improper payment rate. Analysis of DOL data shows that if formal warning cases had been included in DOL's calculation of the overpayment rates for fiscal year 2016, the nationwide overpayment rate would have increased by about 5 percentage points, from an estimated 11.1 percent to an estimated 16.3 percent. The variation among states related to formal warning policies makes it difficult for DOL and others to understand the reasons behind states' reported overpayments associated with work search requirements. Federal internal control standards state that management should communicate quality information externally through reporting lines so that external parties can help the entity achieve its objectives and address related risks. More consistent reporting could help DOL fully understand improper payments associated with work search requirements and work with states to address the issue. DOL is in the process of preparing guidance to states on the use of formal warning policies, according to DOL officials. Guidance is an important tool that agencies use to clarify federal requirements and communicate information about the implementation of programs to grantees. In preparing guidance for states, DOL has an opportunity to determine and communicate how state policies on work search requirements and their related overpayment reporting should align with federal requirements and reporting expectations. Some states may need to take action after the guidance is issued. Providing specific information on any actions required and, if actions are required, setting timeframes for completion and monitoring states' responses to the guidance could help ensure that DOL achieves its desired results.  Why GAO Did This Study The UI program provides temporary income support to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Individuals who claim unemployment are generally required to actively search for work as a condition of receiving benefits. However, the specific work search requirements vary by state, according to DOL. Overseen by DOL, and administered by states, the UI program paid $32 billion to 6.2 million individuals in fiscal year 2016. That same year, the program had the seventh-highest reported improper payment estimate among all federal programs. Currently, the leading reported cause of UI improper payments is overpayments to claimants who failed to meet work search requirements. This report describes (1) differences in state policies regarding claimants who fail to satisfy the work search requirement and implications for DOL's improper payment estimates, and (2) DOL's plans to address formal warning policies that some states have implemented. For this report, GAO reviewed DOL's payment accuracy data, interviewed DOL officials, and reviewed DOL documentation, relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. What GAO Recommends  GAO is not making any recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at 202-512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 -0500