GAO Reports
News stories and news briefs of Government Accountability Office audits, news, reports and testimony.
Featured Stories
GAO Issues Report on Military Personnel
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's oversight of Exceptional Family Member Program. The report (GAO-18-348) is titled "Military Personnel: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the Exceptional Family Member Program".
The report was sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on May 8. Here are excerpts of summaries
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's oversight of Exceptional Family Member Program. The report (GAO-18-348) is titled "Military Personnel: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the Exceptional Family Member Program".
The report was sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on May 8. Here are excerpts of summariesassociated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The support provided to families with special needs through the Department of Defense's (DOD) Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) varies widely for each branch of Military Service. Federal law requires DOD's Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop a uniform policy that includes requirements for (1) developing and updating a services plan for each family with special needs and (2) resources, such as staffing, to ensure an appropriate number of family support providers. OSN has developed such a policy, but DOD relies on each Service to determine its compliance with the policy. However, Army and Navy officials said they have not received feedback from OSN about the extent to which their Service-specific guidance complies. Federal internal control standards call for developing clear policies to achieve agency goals. In addition, DOD's most recent annual reports to Congress do not indicate the extent to which each Service provides services plans or allocates sufficient resources for family support providers. According to GAO's analysis, the Military Services have developed relatively few services plans, and there is wide variation in the number of family support providers employed, which raises questions about potential gaps in services for families with special needs (see table).
(Table omitted)
Each Service uses various mechanisms to monitor how servicemembers are assigned to installations (assignment coordination) and obtain family support, but DOD has not established common performance measures to assess these activities. DOD has taken steps to better support families with special needs, according to the DOD officials GAO interviewed. For example, DOD established a working group to identify gaps in services. However, OSN officials said that DOD lacks common performance measures for assignment coordination and family support because the Services have not reached consensus on what those measures should be. In addition, OSN does not have a process to systematically evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. Federal internal control standards call for assessing performance over time and evaluating the results of monitoring activities. Without establishing common performance measures and assessing monitoring activities, DOD will be unable to fully determine the effect of its efforts to better support families with special needs and the adequacy of the Services' EFMPs as required by federal law."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Military families with special medical and educational needs face unique challenges because of their frequent moves. To help assist these families, DOD provides services plans, which document the support a family member requires. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review the Services' EFMPs, including DOD's oversight of these programs.
This report examines the extent to which (1) each Service provides family support and (2) the Services monitor and DOD evaluates assignment coordination and family support.
GAO analyzed DOD and Service-specific EFMP guidance and documents; analyzed fiscal year 2016 EFMP data (the most recent available); visited seven military installations, selected for their large numbers of military-connected students; and interviewed officials responsible for implementing each Service's EFMP, as well as officials in OSN that administer DOD's EFM policy."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes a total of three recommendations to DOD. DOD should assess and report to Congress on the extent to which each Service provides sufficient family support personnel and services plans, develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, and evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. DOD agreed with these recommendations and plans to develop performance metrics for assignment coordination and develop plans to evaluate the Services' monitoring activities."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-348?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tracks its collections specific to the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act violations and requests that Treasury make any statutorily required deposits to the Fund. The report (GAO-18-346R) is titled "Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: NOAA Should Track Its Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act Collections and Request Any Required Deposits".
The report was sent to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, on April 9. Here are excerpts of summaries
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tracks its collections specific to the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act violations and requests that Treasury make any statutorily required deposits to the Fund. The report (GAO-18-346R) is titled "Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: NOAA Should Track Its Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act Collections and Request Any Required Deposits".
The report was sent to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, on April 9. Here are excerpts of summariesassociated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Endangered Species Act (ESA) established the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Fund) to provide grants to states and territories for the conservation of endangered and threatened species on nonfederal lands, among other things. Under section 11(d) of the act, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) makes deposits from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to the Fund when violations of the ESA or the Lacey Act result in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) collecting fines, penalties, and property forfeiture proceeds (i.e., collections) above the $500,000 statutory threshold.
GAO found that NOAA has not been tracking its collections specific to ESA and Lacey Act violations, nor has it requested that Treasury make any deposits to the Fund under section 11(d). According to NOAA officials, they have not done so because the agency is authorized to deposit all collections it receives for violations of the marine resource laws it enforces--including the ESA and Lacey Act--into a single asset forfeiture fund. As a result, agency officials said NOAA has not tracked the specific laws under which individual collections were made. NOAA officials agreed, however, that to facilitate implementation of section 11(d), it may be feasible for them to track their collections specific to ESA and Lacey Act violations, such as by adopting an approach similar to that of the FWS. According to FWS officials, as FWS receives collections for ESA and Lacey Act violations, officials track those amounts in FWS's financial system.
Because NOAA does not track its collections specific to ESA and Lacey Act violations, the agency cannot calculate and notify Treasury when a deposit needs to be made into the Fund. Treasury officials said they rely on NOAA and FWS to track the amounts the agencies have collected above the $500,000 statutory threshold for Fund deposits. NOAA officials said the agency did not request that Treasury make deposits in fiscal years 2014 to 2017, and Treasury officials confirmed that they did not receive requests from NOAA or make deposits to the Fund based on NOAA's ESA and Lacey Act collections during this period. In contrast, FWS requested that Treasury make deposits equal to the amounts FWS collected above the $500,000 statutory threshold, and Treasury made corresponding deposits to the Fund each year from fiscal years 2014 through 2017, for a total of approximately $7.6 million across the period.
Based on three NOAA law enforcement cases GAO examined, it appears that NOAA had collections in one case that by itself may have exceeded the $500,000 threshold for a required deposit to the Fund. Specifically, NOAA collected almost $650,000 in one 2015 case for violations of multiple laws, including the Lacey Act. If the $500,000 statutory threshold for ESA and Lacey Act collections was met, then a deposit to the Fund would have been required. Without a means for NOAA to track its collections specific to ESA and Lacey Act violations and request that Treasury make any needed deposits, the Fund may not receive some statutorily required deposits."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The ESA aims to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, and the Lacey Act prohibits the transportation and sale of plants, fish, and wildlife taken in violation of U.S., state, or foreign law, among other things. NOAA primarily enforces the ESA and the Lacey Act for most marine species and anadromous fish, and FWS primarily enforces those two laws for terrestrial, freshwater, and bird species. As a result, both agencies may make collections for ESA or Lacey Act violations that trigger a required deposit to the Fund. Examples of ESA and Lacey Act violations that could result in collections include the killing of endangered marine mammals and the sale of these animals or their parts.
This report provides information on the extent to which NOAA tracks its collections specific to ESA and Lacey Act violations and requests that Treasury make any statutorily required deposits to the Fund. GAO reviewed the ESA provision requiring deposits into the Fund based on the amount of collections for ESA and Lacey Act violations. GAO also reviewed available documentation from NOAA and FWS on how they track collections for ESA and Lacey Act violations. Further, GAO reviewed documentation on deposits Treasury made to the Fund from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. GAO also reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of three NOAA law enforcement cases that were closed from fiscal years 2014 to 2017 to identify whether those cases may have resulted in collections for ESA and Lacey Act violations that exceeded $500,000."
What GAO Recommends: "The NOAA Administrator should develop and implement a mechanism to track agency collections for ESA and Lacey Act violations and request that the Secretary of the Treasury make any required deposits to the Fund. The agency concurred with GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-346R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Combating Wildlife Trafficking
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. The report (GAO-18-279) is titled "Combating Wildlife Trafficking: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Use of Financial Rewards".
The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Multiple laws--such as the Endangered Species Act and Lacey
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. The report (GAO-18-279) is titled "Combating Wildlife Trafficking: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Use of Financial Rewards".
The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Multiple laws--such as the Endangered Species Act and LaceyAct--authorize the Departments of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA reported paying few rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017. Specifically, the agencies collectively reported paying 27 rewards, totaling $205,500. Agency officials said that the information was complete to the best of their knowledge but could not sufficiently assure that this information represented all of their reward payments.
FWS and NOAA have reward policies that outline the general process for preparing reward proposals, but FWS's policy does not specify factors for its agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts. Some FWS agents GAO interviewed said that in developing proposals, they did not know whether their proposed reward amounts were enough, too little, or too much. By augmenting its policy to specify factors for agents to consider, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare proposed reward amounts, consistent with federal internal control standards.
FWS and NOAA communicate little information to the public on rewards. For example, most agency websites did not indicate that providing information on wildlife trafficking could qualify for a reward. This is inconsistent with federal standards that call for management to communicate quality information so that external parties can help achieve agency objectives. FWS and NOAA officials said they have not communicated general reward information because of workload concerns, but they said it may be reasonable to provide more information in some instances. By developing plans to communicate more reward information to the public, the agencies can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking that they otherwise might not receive.
FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards. The agencies have not done so because using rewards has generally not been a priority. FWS and NOAA officials agreed that such a review would be worthwhile but provided no plans for doing so. By reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards, FWS and NOAA can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Wildlife trafficking--the poaching and illegal trade of plants, fish, and wildlife--is a multibillion-dollar, global criminal activity that imperils thousands of species. FWS and NOAA enforce laws prohibiting wildlife trafficking that authorize the agencies to pay financial rewards for information about such illegal activities.
GAO was asked to review FWS's and NOAA's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. This report examines (1) laws that authorize FWS and NOAA to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which the agencies paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) the agencies' reward policies, (3) information available to the public on rewards, and (4) the extent to which the agencies reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards.
GAO reviewed laws, examined FWS and NOAA policies and public communications on rewards, analyzed agency reward data for fiscal years 2007 through 2017 and assessed their reliability, interviewed FWS and NOAA officials, and compared agency policies and public communications on rewards to federal internal control standards."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that FWS and NOAA track reward information, FWS augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS and NOAA develop plans to communicate more reward information to the public, and FWS and NOAA review the effectiveness of their reward use. Both agencies concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-279?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
