More Recent Headlines
GAO Reports
News stories and news briefs of Government Accountability Office audits, news, reports and testimony.
Featured Stories
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Interior Department
WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of the Interior. The report (GAO-19-309SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Interior".The report was sent to Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt on April 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified eight priority recommendations for the Department of the Interior (Interior). Since then, Interior has implemented two of the eight recommendations. In May 2018, the Bureau ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of the Interior. The report (GAO-19-309SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Interior". The report was sent to Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt on April 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified eight priority recommendations for the Department of the Interior (Interior). Since then, Interior has implemented two of the eight recommendations. In May 2018, the Bureauof Indian Education (BIE) provided documentation that it finalized and implemented written procedures and a risk-based approach to oversee BIE school expenditures of major education programs, including Interior's School Equalization Program and Education's Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs.
In April 2019, GAO identified one new priority recommendation for Interior, bringing the total number to seven. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- improving oversight of oil and gas activities,
- taking action to ensure safety and health at BIE school facilities,
- improving BIA's management of energy development on Indian lands, and
- reducing factors that hinder tribal administration of federal programs.
Interior's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-309SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for NOAA
WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The report (GAO-19-424SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration".The report was sent to James F. Bridenstine, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on April 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 18 priority recommendations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The report (GAO-19-424SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration". The report was sent to James F. Bridenstine, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, on April 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 18 priority recommendations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).Since then, NASA has implemented 10 of those recommendations by, among other things, taking actions to better align its strategic sourcing practices with those used by leading commercial companies and improving controls over some of its information systems.
In April 2019, GAO identified one additional priority recommendation for NASA, bringing the total number to nine. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- monitoring program costs and execution.
- improving efficiency and effectiveness.
NASA'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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-424SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tribal Consultation
WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' processes for consulting with tribes on infrastructure. The report (GAO-19-22) is titled "Tribal Consultation: Additional Federal Actions Needed for Infrastructure Projects".The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, ranking member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' processes for consulting with tribes on infrastructure. The report (GAO-19-22) is titled "Tribal Consultation: Additional Federal Actions Needed for Infrastructure Projects". The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, ranking member of the HouseNatural Resources subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the U.S., Rep. Peter Aguilar, D-California, Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr., D-Virginia, Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-California, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-New York, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D- Missouri, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, Rep. Daniel T. Kildee, D-Michigan, Rep. Derek Kilmer. D-Washington, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Arizona, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-California, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-New Mexico, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minnesota, Rep. Gwen S. Moore, D-Wisconsin, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-California, Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-California, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, D-California, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, and Rep. Norma Torres, D-California, on March 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Based on interviews with officials from 57 tribes and 21 federal agencies, as well as comments submitted by 100 tribes in 2016 on tribal consultation for infrastructure projects, GAO identified key factors that tribes and agencies believe hinder effective consultation on infrastructure projects.
Some of the key factors identified by tribes included
- agencies initiating consultation late in project development stages,
- agencies not adequately considering tribal input when making decisions about proposed infrastructure projects, and
- agencies not respecting tribal sovereignty or the government-to-government relationship between federally recognized tribes and the federal government.
Some of the key factors identified by the agencies included
- challenges in obtaining and maintaining accurate contact information for tribes, which is needed to notify tribes of consultation opportunities;
- agency resource constraints to effectively support consultation; and
- difficulties coordinating with other federal agencies when there are multiple agencies involved in particular infrastructure projects.
The 21 agencies in GAO's review have taken some steps to facilitate tribal consultation, but the extent to which these steps have been taken varied by agency. For example, GAO found the following:
Three agencies have developed systems to help identify tribes that should be consulted on infrastructure projects, and 18 agencies have developed systems to help notify tribes of consultation opportunities. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development developed a system that aims to identify over 500 tribes' geographic areas of interest and includes their contact information.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC)--which was created to make the process for federal approval for certain (large) infrastructure projects more efficient--recommended in its fiscal year 2018 best practices report the development of a central federal information system of tribal areas of interest and points of contact for consultation. In July 2018, the Department of Housing and Urban Development submitted a proposal to the FPISC to expand the department's system in response to the FPISC recommendation. Although the FPISC has discussed the proposal, as of October 2018 it had not yet decided whether and how to respond to it. If the FPISC decides to move forward and develop a centralized system, a plan with well-defined goals and clear roles and responsibilities, among other things, will provide greater assurance that a centralized system will be implemented in accordance with successful practices for developing government websites.
Five agencies' tribal consultation policies specify that agencies are to communicate with tribes on how tribal input was considered, but 16 agencies do not call for such communication in their policies."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Federal agencies are required in certain circumstances to consult with tribes on infrastructure projects and other activities, such as permitting natural gas pipelines, which may affect tribal natural and cultural resources. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' processes for consulting with tribes on infrastructure.
This report examines, among other things, key factors tribes and selected federal agencies identified that hinder effective consultation on infrastructure projects and steps agencies have taken to facilitate tribal consultation. GAO examined laws, regulations, and policies and interviewed officials from 21 federal agencies that are generally members of the FPISC. GAO also summarized comments that 100 tribes submitted to federal agencies in 2016 to provide input on tribal consultation for infrastructure projects and interviewed available officials from 57 tribes and eight tribal organizations. Tribal and agency views are not generalizable."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making one matter for congressional consideration and 22 specific recommendations to 17 of 21 agencies and the FPISC on actions they can take to improve tribal consultation, including that the FPISC develop a plan for establishing a central federal information system and that agencies establish or update their policies to better communicate their consideration of tribal input. The agencies to which GAO made recommendations generally agreed with them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-22?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on 2017 Hurricane Season
WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal response to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-296) is titled "2017 Hurricane Season: Federal Support for Electricity Grid Restoration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal response to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-296) is titled "2017 Hurricane Season: Federal Support for Electricity Grid Restoration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Securityand Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, on April 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal agencies supported efforts to restore electricity in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and Puerto Rico through the types of support they traditionally provide following disasters and, in Puerto Rico, in some unprecedented ways.
USVI. Federal agencies provided traditional federal support to the electric utility's restoration efforts. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided financial assistance through its Public Assistance Program, and the Department of Energy (DOE) provided subject matter expertise to assist the local utility. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided generators for hospitals and other critical facilities. FEMA obligated about $795 million for these efforts as of July 20, 2018. According to the local utility, it took about 5 months for power to be restored to all customers with structures deemed safe for power restoration.
Puerto Rico. In addition to the traditional types of support, FEMA and USACE undertook unprecedented roles of helping to coordinate and directly assist with grid restoration in Puerto Rico. FEMA requested that USACE lead federal grid repair efforts because of the scale of the damage and because the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) did not have the capacity to respond, according to FEMA officials. FEMA obligated about $3.2 billion for electricity restoration efforts as of July 20, 2018, and PREPA estimated that it took roughly 11 months for power to be restored to all customers with structures deemed safe for power restoration.
Various factors affected federal support for electricity grid restoration, according to officials GAO interviewed and documents reviewed. For example, getting the crews and materials needed to islands was more difficult and time-consuming than on the mainland. In Puerto Rico, PREPA was insolvent, which presented challenges for restoring the grid. For example, PREPA canceled its vegetation management program; this contributed to the destruction of the grid when the hurricane arrived, according to FEMA officials. In addition, FEMA did not anticipate or plan for the extensive federal role in grid restoration in Puerto Rico, and USACE did not have a contract in place to immediately initiate grid repair efforts, according to USACE officials. FEMA and USACE identified potential actions to address these challenges, such as reviewing advance contracts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria damaged much of the electricity grids' transmission and distribution systems in USVI and Puerto Rico. The hurricanes left most of USVI's 106,405 people and all of Puerto Rico's 3.3 million without power and resulted in the longest blackout in U.S. history.
Under the National Response Framework, electric utilities are responsible for repairing infrastructure and restoring service. They often use mutual assistance--voluntary partnerships with other electric utilities--to bring in additional resources to help restore electricity. Federal agencies provide financial assistance; help coordinate the federal response; and in severe emergencies, provide logistical support, such as assisting in damage assessments and location and transportation of repair crews and equipment.
GAO was asked to review the federal response to the 2017 hurricanes. This report provides information on federal support for restoring the electricity grids in Puerto Rico and USVI and factors affecting this support. GAO has ongoing work examining federal support to improve grid resilience in Puerto Rico.
GAO reviewed agency documents and funding data through July 20, 2018, the most recent data available; interviewed officials from FEMA, DOE, and USACE; and conducted site visits to Puerto Rico and USVI."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-296?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on NNSA Contracting
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration cost-benefit report for competing the management and operating contract for the Nevada National Security Site. The report (GAO-19-349R) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration Contracting: Review of the NNSA Report on the Nevada National Security Site Contract Competition".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration cost-benefit report for competing the management and operating contract for the Nevada National Security Site. The report (GAO-19-349R) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration Contracting: Review of the NNSA Report on the Nevada National Security Site Contract Competition". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee,chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on April 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) officials told us that they sought two major changes in competing the Nevada National Security Site (Nevada Site) management and operating (M&O) contract: lower costs to the government, including management fees, and better contractor performance driven by new contract terms and conditions.
Specifically, GAO identified that NNSA sought to achieve cost savings and improved contractor performance by including contract clauses that change how (1) fees are awarded to the contractor; (2) contractors' indirect cost rates are calculated; (3) new or revised contractor employee benefit plans are approved; (4) construction projects are managed and accounted for separately from the M&O contract; and (5) more descriptive, specific, and performance-based requirements in the statements of work are used to support management and the oversight of the contractor performance. For example, clauses in the new Nevada Site M&O contract reduce the available award fee to 4.4 percent of the contract value, down from 7 percent under the prior contract. NNSA estimates this will save $112 million over a 10-year contract term in comparison to the costs of extending the prior contract over this same period.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as amended (Act), NNSA is required to submit a cost benefit analysis to the Congressional defense committees following the award of a new M&O contract. NNSA's report addressed one of five required reporting elements pertaining to costs, benefits, and delays or disruptions with detail but addressed the other four elements without detail. The required reporting elements related to the contract competition are (1) expected cost savings, (2) key limitations and uncertainties that could affect the cost savings, (3) costs of the competition and increased costs over the life of the contract, (4) disruptions or delays, and (5) other expected benefits. Table 1 summarizes the extent to which NNSA addressed each element.
View table 1 at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-349R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
In addition, NNSA's report addressed one of two required elements on its decisions to compete the contract and the activities that should be covered under the M&O contract. NNSA found that all the considerations listed in the FAR for replacing an incumbent contractor for the use of an M&O contract applied and were met with respect to the operation of the Nevada Site. However, the NNSA report did not discuss an evaluation of which activities at the Nevada Site, if any, could be covered under a contract other than the M&O contract."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NNSA is responsible for the management of the nation's nuclear weapons programs, among other missions. NNSA relies heavily on contractors and M&O contracts. One of the facilities managed under an M&O contract is the Nevada Site. NNSA accepted proposals for a new Nevada Site M&O contract in November and December 2015; the contract was awarded in May 2017.
The Act requires NNSA to submit a cost-benefit report addressing a range of issues to the congressional defense committees after an award of a new M&O contract and to provide a detailed description of the analyses it conducted on each issue to reach its conclusion. The Act includes a provision for GAO to review each NNSA report. This report addresses (1) changes, if any, NNSA sought under the new Nevada Site contract, and how those changes are reflected in the new contract; (2) the extent to which NNSA's report addresses required reporting elements with respect to costs and benefits and potential disruptions or delays related to the competition; and (3) the extent to which NNSA's report addresses two required reporting elements pertaining to its decision to extend or compete the contract and the scope of activities to be covered under the M&O contract. To address these objectives GAO reviewed DOE documents and interviewed NNSA officials involved in preparing the cost-benefit report, among other things."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-349R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for DOE
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Energy. The report (GAO-19-311SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Energy".The report was sent to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found
In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, DOE has not implemented any of those recommendations. However, GAO closed as not implemented one recommendation identified ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Energy. The report (GAO-19-311SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Energy". The report was sent to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, DOE has not implemented any of those recommendations. However, GAO closed as not implemented one recommendation identifiedin the 2017 and 2018 letters on the quality of DOE's financial and cost information, since NNSA did not implement it and it has been superseded by one of this year's additions.
In April 2019, GAO identified six additional priority recommendations for DOE, bringing the total number to 18. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Improving project and program management.
- Improving contract management.
- Improving financial and cost information.
- Strengthening planning for the future of the strategic petroleum reserve.
- Addressing nuclear modernization challenges.
- Addressing DOE's environmental liability.
- Addressing aging legacy information technology systems and cybersecurity.
DOE's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-311SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for GSA
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the General Services Administration. The report (GAO-19-317SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: General Services Administration".The report was sent to Emily W. Murphy, administrator of the General Services Administration, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified five priority recommendations for the General Services Administration (GSA). Since then, GSA has implemented two of those recommendations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the General Services Administration. The report (GAO-19-317SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: General Services Administration". The report was sent to Emily W. Murphy, administrator of the General Services Administration, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified five priority recommendations for the General Services Administration (GSA). Since then, GSA has implemented two of those recommendationsby, among other things, improving security-review and information-sharing protocols for stakeholders of high-security federal space, and reaching an inter-agency agreement clarifying roles and responsibilities for federal security.
In February 2019, GAO identified two additional priority recommendations for GSA, bringing the total number to five. These recommendations involve the four following areas:
- improving decision-making related to the Department of Homeland Security headquarters consolidation,
- reducing costs associated with new leases,
- estimating the operations and maintenance costs of design choices for new buildings, and
- enhancing cybersecurity protection of critical infrastructure.
GSA's implementation of these recommendations could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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 that funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing priority recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-317SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Justice Department
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Justice. The report (GAO-19-361SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Justice".The report was sent to William P. Barr, attorney general of the Department of Justice, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Since then, DOJ has implemented 2 of those recommendations focused on increased data collection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Justice. The report (GAO-19-361SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Justice". The report was sent to William P. Barr, attorney general of the Department of Justice, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Since then, DOJ has implemented 2 of those recommendations focused on increased data collectionefforts and tracking to determine the effectiveness of key DOJ initiatives. Specifically, DOJ initiated additional data collection and data evaluation efforts to measure the performance of U.S. Attorneys' Offices in determining whether the department's charging and sentencing policies were being effectively implemented.
In addition, prior to discontinuing its Clemency Initiative, the department took steps to reform its management of the initiative, including increasing staffing to meet the demands of the initiative, prioritizing the review of certain petitions, and streamlining the review process. In April 2019, GAO identified 3 additional priority recommendations for DOJ, bringing the total number to 14. The recommendations address management challenges in the immigration court system.
DOJ's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-361SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for OMB
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Office of Management and Budget. The report (GAO-19-323SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Office of Management and Budget".The report was sent to Mick Mulvaney, director, Russell Vought, acting director and Margaret Weichert, deputy director for management of the Office of Management and Budget, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 27 priority recommendations for the Office of Management ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Office of Management and Budget. The report (GAO-19-323SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Office of Management and Budget". The report was sent to Mick Mulvaney, director, Russell Vought, acting director and Margaret Weichert, deputy director for management of the Office of Management and Budget, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 27 priority recommendations for the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB). Since then, OMB has implemented 7 of those recommendations by, among other things, taking actions to help agencies reduce improper payments and the cost of acquiring goods and services. In addition, GAO closed one additional recommendation because circumstances have changed and it is no longer relevant.
In April 2019, GAO identified 12 additional priority recommendations for OMB, bringing the total number to 31. These recommendations involve the following areas:
Improving government performance.
- Increasing the transparency of federal spending data.
- Improving acquisition management and reducing costs.
- Reducing government-wide improper payments.
- Improving fraud risk management.
- Establishing controls for disaster relief funding.
- Improving federal grants management.
- Improving the collection and coordination of federal data on sexual violence.
OMB's continued attention to these issues could yield significant cost savings and other improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-323SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Oversight of Nursing Home Abuse Investigations in Oregon
WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversight of the Oregon state survey agency's investigation of complaints and facility-reported incidents of abuse in nursing homes in Oregon. The report (GAO-19-313R) is titled "Management Report: CMS Needs to Address Gaps in Federal Oversight of Nursing Home Abuse Investigations That Persisted in Oregon for at Least 15 Years".The report was sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, on April 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversight of the Oregon state survey agency's investigation of complaints and facility-reported incidents of abuse in nursing homes in Oregon. The report (GAO-19-313R) is titled "Management Report: CMS Needs to Address Gaps in Federal Oversight of Nursing Home Abuse Investigations That Persisted in Oregon for at Least 15 Years". The report was sent to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, on April 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with thereport.
What GAO Found: "The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for ensuring that the approximately 1.4 million residents in 15,600 nursing homes nationwide receive quality care and are free from abuse. To monitor compliance with nursing home quality standards, CMS enters into agreements with agencies in each state government--known as state survey agencies--and oversees the work of the survey agencies. These survey agencies investigate complaints from the public and facility-reported incidents regarding resident care or safety, such as abuse. The survey agencies, which are often housed in the health or human services departments of state governments, report the results of these investigations to CMS; CMS can then take action, such as applying appropriate federal penalties.
In the course of ongoing work examining oversight of abuse in nursing homes in five selected states, GAO became aware that the Oregon survey agency was not following federal requirements that the survey agency investigate all complaints and facility-reported incidents. Instead, complaints and facility-reported incidents alleging sexual, physical, verbal/mental and some other types of abuse in nursing homes were primarily investigated by Oregon's Adult Protective Services (APS). APS staff are not trained in investigating abuse according to federal nursing home regulations. Moreover, the results of APS investigations were not reported to CMS or included in federal reporting to consumers. Specifically, GAO found that for more than 15 years, CMS's oversight failed to address that the Oregon survey agency was not investigating all abuse complaints and facility-reported incidents as required by federal law. Because abuse allegations from complaints and facility-reported incidents in Oregon were investigated primarily by the state's APS agency through October 2018, CMS may have missed patterns of abuse, failed to impose federal fines for nursing homes with serious abuse, and continues to have incomplete information on nursing home quality indicators for both internal CMS purposes and Oregon consumers.
An Oregon policy change effective October 29, 2018, requires the state survey agency to investigate all complaints and facility-reported incidents of abuse in nursing homes. CMS officials told GAO that they had been informed by Oregon officials of the policy change, and CMS officials plan to confirm Oregon's compliance. However, gaps in investigations of nursing home abuse stemming from Oregon's longstanding non-compliance resulted in incomplete information for CMS and consumers, and CMS has not ensured there are no other states with similar noncompliance."
Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO was asked to review CMS's oversight of abuse in nursing homes and in the course of that work became aware that one of the selected state survey agencies in the national review--Oregon--was not following federal law for nursing home oversight, prompting further review.[1]
This management report reviews CMS oversight of the Oregon state survey agency's investigation of complaints and facility-reported incidents of abuse in nursing homes in Oregon. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed CMS policies, interviewed officials from CMS and Oregon's Department of Human Services, and examined information on abuse from publicly available CMS and Oregon online resources."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations, including that CMS should: ensure all state survey agencies are meeting federal requirements that state survey agencies are responsible for investigating complaints and facility-reported incidents alleging abuse in nursing homes; identify options for incorporating information on Oregon's investigations of abuse into oversight of Oregon nursing homes; and clearly communicate to consumers the lack of data on abuse in Oregon nursing homes. HHS concurred with the recommendations."
* * *
Footnote:
[1]Oregon was one of the five states GAO selected as part of an ongoing review of CMS oversight of abuse in nursing homes, requested by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The selected states reflect variation in geography, CMS regional oversight, the number of nursing homes in the state, and the participation of Adult Protective Services (APS) in nursing home oversight, as well as congressional interest. GAO anticipates issuing the broader report on oversight of abuse in nursing homes later this year.
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-313R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Truck Underride Guards
WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on data on truck underride crashes and information on underride guards. The report (GAO-19-264) is titled "Truck Underride Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed".The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, and Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on data on truck underride crashes and information on underride guards. The report (GAO-19-264) is titled "Truck Underride Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed". The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, and Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associatedwith the report.
What GAO Found: "According to crash data collected by police and reported by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), fatalities from "underride" crashes, such as those pictured below, represent a small percentage of all traffic fatalities.
From 2008 through 2017, an average of about 219 fatalities from underride crashes involving large trucks were reported annually, representing less than 1 percent of total traffic fatalities over that time frame. However, these fatalities are likely underreported due to variability in state and local data collection. For example, police officers responding to a crash do not use a standard definition of an underride crash and states' crash report forms vary, with some not including a field for collecting underride data. Further, police officers receive limited information on how to identify and record underride crashes. As a result, NHTSA may not have accurate data to support efforts to reduce traffic fatalities.
Underride guards are in varying stages of development, and gaps exist in inspection of rear guards in current use and in research efforts for side guards.
* NHTSA has proposed strengthening rear guard requirements for trailers (the rear unit of a tractor-trailer) and estimates about 95 percent of all newly manufactured trailers already meet the stronger requirements. Although tractor-trailers are inspected, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration annual inspection regulations do not require the rear guard to be inspected, so damaged guards that could fail in a crash may be on the roadways.
* Side underride guards are being developed, but stakeholders GAO interviewed identified challenges to their use, such as the stress on trailer frames due to the additional weight. NHTSA has not determined the effectiveness and cost of these guards, but manufacturers told GAO they are unlikely to move forward with development without such research.
* Based on a 2009 crash investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that NHTSA require front guards on tractors. NHTSA officials stated that the agency plans to complete research to respond to this recommendation in 2019. However, stakeholders generally stated that the bumper and lower frame of tractors typically used in the U.S. may mitigate the need for front guards for underride purposes.
* Regarding single-unit trucks, such as dump trucks, NTSB has recommended that NHTSA develop standards for underride guards for these trucks, but the agency has concluded these standards would not be cost-effective."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Truck underride crashes are collisions in which a car slides under the body of a truck--such as a tractor-trailer or single-unit truck--due to the height difference between the vehicles. During these crashes, the trailer or truck may intrude into the passenger compartment, leading to severe injuries or fatalities. Current federal regulations require trailers to have rear guards that can withstand the force of a crash, whereas the rear guards required for single-unit trucks do not have to be designed to withstand a crash. There are no federal side or front underride guard requirements.
GAO was asked to review data on truck underride crashes and information on underride guards. This report examines (1) the data DOT reports on underride crashes and (2) the development and use of underride guard technologies in the U.S. GAO analyzed DOT's underride crash data for 2008 through 2017; reviewed NHTSA's proposed regulations and research on new guard technologies; and interviewed stakeholders, including DOT officials, industry and safety groups, and state officials selected based on reported underride crash fatalities and other factors."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOT take steps to provide a standardized definition of underride crashes and data fields, share information with police departments on identifying underride crashes, establish annual inspection requirements for rear guards, and conduct additional research on side underride guards. DOT concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-264?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Women-Owned Small Business Program
WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Women-Owned Small Business program. The report (GAO-19-168) is titled "Women-Owned Small Business Program: Actions Needed to Address Ongoing Oversight Issues".The report was sent to Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, and Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-North Carolina, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Small Business Administration (SBA) has implemented one of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Women-Owned Small Business program. The report (GAO-19-168) is titled "Women-Owned Small Business Program: Actions Needed to Address Ongoing Oversight Issues". The report was sent to Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, and Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-North Carolina, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Small Business Administration (SBA) has implemented one of thethree changes to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) program authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (2015 NDAA). Specifically, in September 2015 SBA published a final rule to implement sole-source authority, effective October 2015. As of February 2019, SBA had not eliminated the option for program participants to self-certify that they are eligible to participate, as required by 2015 NDAA. SBA officials stated that this requirement would be addressed as part of the new certification process for the WOSB program, which they expect to implement by January 1, 2020.
SBA has not addressed WOSB program oversight deficiencies identified in GAO's 2014 review (GAO-15-54). For example, GAO previously recommended that SBA establish procedures to assess the performance of four third-party certifiers--private entities approved by SBA to certify the eligibility of WOSB firms. While SBA conducted a compliance review of the certifiers in 2016, it has no plans to regularly monitor them. By not improving its oversight of the WOSB program, SBA is limiting its ability to ensure third-party certifiers are following program requirements. In addition, the implementation of sole-source authority in light of these continued oversight deficiencies can increase program risk. Consequently, GAO maintains that its prior recommendations should be addressed. In addition, similar to previous findings from SBA's Office of Inspector General, GAO found that about 3.5 percent of contracts using a WOSB set-aside were awarded for ineligible goods or services from April 2011 through June 2018. SBA does not review contracting data that could identify this problem and inform SBA which agencies making awards may need targeted outreach or training. As a result, SBA cannot provide reasonable assurance that WOSB program requirements are being met and that the program is meeting its goals.
While federal contract obligations to all women-owned small businesses and WOSB program set-asides have increased since fiscal year 2012, WOSB program set-asides remain a small percentage (see figure)."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-168?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2000, Congress authorized the WOSB program, allowing contracting officers to set aside procurements to women-owned small businesses in industries in which they are substantially underrepresented. To be eligible to participate in the WOSB program, firms have the option to self-certify or be certified by a third-party certifier. However, the 2015 NDAA changed the WOSB program by (1) authorizing SBA to implement sole-source authority, (2) eliminating the option for firms to self-certify as being eligible for the program and (3) allowing SBA to implement a new certification process.
GAO was asked to review the WOSB program. This report discusses (1) the extent to which SBA has addressed the 2015 NDAA changes, (2) SBA's efforts to address previously identified deficiencies, and (3) use of the WOSB program. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and program documents; analyzed federal contracting data from April 2011 through June 2018; and interviewed SBA officials, officials from contracting agencies selected to obtain a range of experience with the WOSB program, and three of the four private third-party certifiers."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that SBA develop a process for periodically reviewing the extent to which WOSB program set-asides are awarded for ineligible goods or services and use the results to address identified issues, such as through targeted outreach or training on the WOSB program. SBA agreed with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-168?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Presidential Helicopter
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. The report (GAO-19-329) is titled "Presidential Helicopter: Program Continues to Make Development Progress While Addressing Challenges".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. The report (GAO-19-329) is titled "Presidential Helicopter: Program Continues to Make Development Progress While Addressing Challenges". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman,Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on April 11. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Acquisition cost estimates for the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program (also known as the VH-92A) have declined from $5.18 billion to $4.95 billion, for 23 new helicopters, since the program started in April 2014 (see table), and the program remains within its planned schedule. The contractor attributes this cost decrease to several factors: stable requirements, a low number of design changes, and program efficiencies.
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-329?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The program has delayed some program milestones--for example, its low-rate production decision--by 5 months from its original baseline goal. Although this remains within the approved schedule, the program will have less time than planned between the end of development testing and start of operational assessment. Program officials told GAO they expect to have enough information from both the government-led integrated testing and the operational assessment to inform the low-rate production decision.
Continuing development challenges concerning performance requirements may affect whether the program can deliver fully capable aircraft on time in the future. These include:
VH-92A start procedures: As we reported last year, the VH-92A was pursuing technical improvements related to Sikorsky's S-92A propulsion system, which has yet to meet a VH-92A performance requirement. Program risk for this performance requirement has not changed since our April 2018 report on the program.
Landing zone suitability: As GAO found in 2018, the program has not yet met a key system capability requirement for landing the helicopter without damaging the landing zone--for example, the White House South Lawn. According to program officials, Sikorsky plans to have a solution for this performance requirement by November 2020 .
Mission communications system: The VH-92A program has experienced problems connecting the aircraft's communication system to secure networks, due to changes in network security requirements, presenting a new risk area for the program. The Navy anticipates having a fix by January 2020. These changes are expected to be incorporated into the four production representative helicopters being built under the development contract in time for the program's initial operational test and evaluation."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The mission of the presidential helicopter fleet is to provide safe, reliable, and timely transportation in support of the President. The Navy plans to acquire a fleet of 23 VH-92A helicopters to replace the current Marine Corps fleet of VH-3D and VH-60N aircraft. Initial delivery of VH-92A presidential helicopters is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2020 with production ending in fiscal year 2023. The total cost of this acquisition program was originally estimated at almost $5.2 billion.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to report on the VH-92A program annually, until the Navy awards the full-rate production contract. This report discusses (1) the extent to which the program is meeting its cost and schedule goals and (2) challenges facing the program in system development.
To determine how the program is progressing, GAO analyzed program documents; and spoke with officials from the program office, the Defense Contract Management Agency, contractors, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and Department of Defense, Developmental Test and Evaluation. GAO also assessed the program's integrated master schedule against GAO best practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations in this report, but will continue to monitor the potential cost growth and schedule delays as the program responds to challenges meeting capability requirements."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-329?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Data Center Optimization
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' data center inventories and strategies. The report (GAO-19-241) is titled "Data Center Optimization: Additional Agency Actions Needed to Meet OMB Goals".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' data center inventories and strategies. The report (GAO-19-241) is titled "Data Center Optimization: Additional Agency Actions Needed to Meet OMB Goals". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman,Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on April 11. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The 24 agencies participating in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) reported mixed progress toward achieving OMB's goals for closing data centers and realizing the associated savings by September 2018. As of August 2018, 13 agencies reported that they had met, or had plans to meet, all of their OMB-assigned closure goals by the deadline. However, 11 agencies reported that they did not have plans to meet their goals. Further, 16 agencies reported that, as of August 2018, they had met, or planned to meet, their cost savings targets, for a total of $2.36 billion in cost savings for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. This is about $0.38 billion less than OMB's DCOI savings goal of $2.7 billion. This shortfall is the result of 5 agencies reporting less in planned cost savings and avoidances in their DCOI strategic plans, as compared to their savings targets established for them by OMB. Three agencies did not have a cost savings target and did not report any achieved savings.
In addition, the 24 agencies reported limited progress against OMB's five data center optimization targets for server utilization and automated monitoring, energy metering, power usage effectiveness, facility utilization, and virtualization. As of August 2018, the agencies reported that 3 had met three targets, 9 had met one target, and 10 met none of the targets. Two agencies did not have a basis to report on progress as they do not own any data centers. Further, as of August 2018, 20 agencies did not plan to meet all of OMB's fiscal year 2018 optimization goals. Specifically, only 2 agencies reported plans to meet all applicable targets; 6 reported that they did not plan to meet any of the targets (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-241?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
We selected 6 agencies that had demonstrated success towards meeting their DCOI goals and those agencies reported a number of key practices that contributed to their efforts. The officials noted the importance of, among other things, obtaining executive leadership support for consolidation and optimization activities, employing an organization-wide communications plan, and focusing on data center closures. The officials also cited the use of past experience and lessons learned to inform improvements to future consolidation plans and processes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In December 2014, Congress enacted federal IT acquisition reform legislation that included provisions related to ongoing federal data center consolidation efforts. OMB's Federal Chief Information Officer launched DCOI to build on prior data center consolidation efforts; improve federal data centers' performance; and establish goals for inventory closures, cost savings and avoidances, and optimizing performance.
The 2014 legislation included a provision for GAO to annually review agencies' data center inventories and strategies. Accordingly, GAO's objectives were to (1) evaluate agencies' progress and plans for data center closures and cost savings; (2) assess agencies' progress against OMB's data center optimization targets; (3) and identify effective agency practices for achieving data center closures, cost savings, and optimization progress. To do so, GAO assessed the 24 DCOI agencies' data center inventories as of August 2018; reviewed their reported cost savings documentation; evaluated their data center optimization strategic plans; and assessed their progress against OMB's established optimization targets. GAO also solicited practices that selected agencies reported to be effective in meeting DCOI goals."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 36 recommendations to 22 agencies to improve performance against established DCOI goals. Eleven agencies agreed with the recommendations, three did not fully agree, one disagreed, and seven neither agreed nor disagreed, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-241?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Modernizing Nuclear Security Enterprise
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Kansas City National Security Campus staffing plans and capabilities to meet national security requirements. The report (GAO-19-126) is titled "Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA Is Taking Action to Manage Increased Workload at Kansas City National Security Campus".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Kansas City National Security Campus staffing plans and capabilities to meet national security requirements. The report (GAO-19-126) is titled "Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA Is Taking Action to Manage Increased Workload at Kansas City National Security Campus". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California,ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on April 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Workload forecasts have significantly changed at the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary site for procuring or producing nonnuclear parts and components of nuclear weapons since the site's modern production facility was built in 2012. Specifically, workload projections made by the contractor operating the site, known as the Kansas City National Security Campus (Kansas City site), has increased significantly from forecasts used in planning the site's new production facility. More recent forecasts show that to meet workload requirements, production and administrative staff will need to almost double by 2020 compared to 2014 levels. For example, workload to modernize the B61-12 and W88 weapons systems will double during fiscal years 2020 through 2022.
According to NNSA officials and contractor staff, the site has identified and begun to mitigate management challenges to meeting future workload, including:
- Ensuring sufficient production and office space. Because the current space is not sufficient for the increase in projected workload, the site is leasing additional space until long-term solutions, currently in planning, can be implemented.
- Updating production equipment. To update aging production equipment, the site is developing a 10-year equipment strategy, among other things.
- Retaining and recruiting a sufficient workforce. The site has offered rewards and benefits to retain existing staff, about a third of whom are eligible to retire. It is also recruiting skilled new staff in tight labor markets and seeking to expedite security clearances for them.
- Ensuring adequate external supplier capacity. The site procures about 65 percent of its nonnuclear components from external suppliers. The site is assessing capacity and risk of existing suppliers and developing new ones.
Current mitigation efforts should help the site meet currently planned increased workload and capacity demands, according to contractor and NNSA analyses. However, the February 2018 Nuclear Posture Review--conducted by the Department of Defense under the direction of the President to determine the role of nuclear weapons in the nation's security strategy--may change requirements and add to the site's workload in ways not yet fully known because studies and plans in response to the review are not fully complete."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Modernization of the nation's nuclear stockpile depends on timely procurement and production of nonnuclear parts and components. Such parts and components make up over 80 percent of the items in a nuclear weapon. The Kansas City site procures or produces most of these parts, under NNSA oversight. In fiscal year 2012, the site completed construction of a modern production facility. The new facility was expected to accommodate rising future workload demands, based on the forecasts that were current in 2012, according to Kansas City site contractor representatives.
The Senate committee report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review the Kansas City site's staffing plans and capabilities to meet national security requirements. This report examines (1) workload forecasts for the site since 2012, and (2) management challenges the site has identified for achieving the forecasted workload, and actions the site has taken to mitigate these challenges.
GAO reviewed NNSA and contractor documents from 2012 through 2018 relevant to workload changes, and associated workload capacity, including information on infrastructure, equipment, and business processes--as well as personnel data. GAO also interviewed NNSA program and field officials and contractor representatives."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-126?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for FDIC
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The report (GAO-19-354SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation".The report was sent to Jelena McWilliams, ahairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2019, GAO identified two open priority recommendations for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). These recommendations involve ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The report (GAO-19-354SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation". The report was sent to Jelena McWilliams, ahairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2019, GAO identified two open priority recommendations for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). These recommendations involvethe following areas:
- collaborating with other financial regulators to address consumer risks involving financial account aggregation services
- conducting a retrospective review to help ensure that Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering regulatory objectives are being met in the most effective and least burdensome way
FDIC's continued attention to these issues could improve its ability to more effectively oversee risks to consumers and the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-354SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Federal Reserve
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the open priority recommendations for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The report (GAO-19-355SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System".The report was sent to Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2019, GAO identified 10 open priority recommendations for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the open priority recommendations for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The report (GAO-19-355SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System". The report was sent to Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2019, GAO identified 10 open priority recommendations for the Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem (Federal Reserve). These recommendations involve the following areas:
- collaborating with other financial regulators to address consumer risks involving financial account aggregation services
- conducting a retrospective review to help ensure that Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering regulatory objectives are being met in the most effective and least burdensome way
- improving risk management of the models the Federal Reserve uses to test banks' ability to withstand financial risks and stress
The Federal Reserve's continued attention to these issues could improve its ability to more effectively oversee risks to consumers and the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-355SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for IRS
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Internal Revenue Service. The report (GAO-19-324SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Internal Revenue Service".The report was sent to Charles P. Rettig, commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 16 priority recommendations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since then, IRS has implemented one of those recommendations by using more complete performance ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Internal Revenue Service. The report (GAO-19-324SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Internal Revenue Service". The report was sent to Charles P. Rettig, commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 16 priority recommendations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since then, IRS has implemented one of those recommendations by using more complete performanceinformation to make decisions that justify the use of resources to audit certain types of tax issues and returns.
In March 2019, GAO identified eight additional priority recommendations for IRS, bringing the total number to 23. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Improving payment integrity
- Reducing tax fraud
- Improving resource investment decision-making and oversight
- Improving information security
- Improving audit effectiveness
- Improving taxpayer services
IRS's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-324SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for NRC
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The report (GAO-19-310SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Nuclear Regulatory Commission".The report was sent to Kristine Svinicki, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 5 priority recommendations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since then, NRC has implemented 1 of those recommendations by assessing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The report (GAO-19-310SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Nuclear Regulatory Commission". The report was sent to Kristine Svinicki, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 5 priority recommendations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since then, NRC has implemented 1 of those recommendations by assessingthe effectiveness of its trustworthiness and reliability process by which licensees approve employees for unescorted access to high-risk radiological sources at industrial facilities and providing licenses with additional guidance.
GAO has not identified additional priority recommendations for NRC for the April 2019 letter, bringing the total number to 4. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- addressing the security of radiological sources.
- improving the reliability of cost estimates.
- improving strategic human capital management.
NRC'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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-310SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for SBA
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Small Business Administration. The report (GAO-19-371SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Small Business Administration".The report was sent to Linda McMahon, administrator of the Small Business Administration, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified six priority recommendations for the Small Business Administration (SBA). Since then, SBA has implemented four of these recommendations by, among ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Small Business Administration. The report (GAO-19-371SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Small Business Administration". The report was sent to Linda McMahon, administrator of the Small Business Administration, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified six priority recommendations for the Small Business Administration (SBA). Since then, SBA has implemented four of these recommendations by, amongother things, taking actions to evaluate its programs' effectiveness and improve management of its software licenses.
In April 2019, GAO identified three additional priority recommendations for SBA, bringing the total number to five. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Improving lender compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement.
- Improving data collected on programs designed to support entrepreneurs.
- Ensuring proper staffing of SBA export finance specialists.
SBA's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-371SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for SSA
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration. The report (GAO-19-394SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration".The report was sent to Nancy A. Berryhill, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified seven open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has implemented three of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration. The report (GAO-19-394SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration". The report was sent to Nancy A. Berryhill, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified seven open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has implemented three ofthose recommendations by, among other things, developing a plan to include physician-assisted fraud as part of its broader efforts to assess disability fraud risk.
As of January 2019, SSA has four remaining open priority recommendations from those GAO identified in 2018. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- reducing improper payments.
- increasing overpayment recovery.
SSA's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-394SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for State Department
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of State. The report (GAO-19-420SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of State".The report was sent to Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified 20 priority recommendations for the Department of State (State). Since then, State has implemented 10 of those recommendations, which we believe have enhanced the security and safety of diplomatic ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of State. The report (GAO-19-420SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of State". The report was sent to Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified 20 priority recommendations for the Department of State (State). Since then, State has implemented 10 of those recommendations, which we believe have enhanced the security and safety of diplomaticpersonnel and facilities overseas, improved State's ability to track Antiterrorism Assistance trainees' outcomes, and mitigated the risk of staff fraud by employees of refugee resettlement support centers, among other things.
In April 2019, GAO identified 8 additional priority recommendations for State, bringing the total number to 18. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- improving security of overseas personnel and facilities;
- assuring proper vetting for security assistance programs;
- modernizing outdated information technology systems;
- ensuring quality of foreign and democracy assistance data and reporting;
- improving administration of hardship pay and recovery of improper payments; and
- addressing embassy construction budgetary and planning issues.
State's continued attention to these areas could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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 that funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-420SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for SSA
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration. The report (GAO-19-394SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration".The report was sent to Nancy A. Berryhill, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified seven open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has implemented three of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration. The report (GAO-19-394SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration". The report was sent to Nancy A. Berryhill, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified seven open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has implemented three ofthose recommendations by, among other things, developing a plan to include physician-assisted fraud as part of its broader efforts to assess disability fraud risk.
As of January 2019, SSA has four remaining open priority recommendations from those GAO identified in 2018. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- reducing improper payments.
- increasing overpayment recovery.
SSA's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-394SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tax Administration
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's dispute resolution process. The report (GAO-19-81) is titled "Tax Administration: Opportunities Exist to Improve IRS's Management of International Tax Dispute Resolution".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on March 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "A U.S. multinational corporation (MNC) operating in a foreign country is subject to taxes in that country as well as in the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's dispute resolution process. The report (GAO-19-81) is titled "Tax Administration: Opportunities Exist to Improve IRS's Management of International Tax Dispute Resolution". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on March 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "A U.S. multinational corporation (MNC) operating in a foreign country is subject to taxes in that country as well as in theUnited States. The U.S. MNC's tax return may be audited by the United States or the other country. Such audits can result in an adjustment to the U.S. MNC's taxable income that may result in income being subject to tax in both countries. If the U.S. MNC disagrees with the adjustment, it can ask the United States Competent Authority (USCA) within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to help resolve the dispute through the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). Generally, disputes are resolved by one country withdrawing some or all of the adjustment and the other country providing other relief to the MNC to address double taxation of income. The following figure provides an overview of the dispute resolution process.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-81?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Dispute resolution assistance is available to U.S.MNCs that need it and USCA provides comprehensive technical information on its website on how to request assistance. However, because USCA's website does not provide an overview or plain language guidance on the MAP process U.S. MNCs may not have clear information on how to navigate the process.
USCA has taken a number of steps to ensure efficient management of MAP cases including assigning staff with requisite background and skills to cases according to their complexity and organizing staff into teams that specialize by countries. However, GAO identified a number of weaknesses that impact USCA's management of MAP cases. These include the following:
- key data are not tracked and existing data are not used to assess the effective allocation of resources for the program,
- few controls have been established to monitor and ensure the reliability of the data in the case management database, and
- lack of trend analyses on dispute case characteristics that could help inform management decision making and the more efficient operation of the program."
Why GAO Did This Study: "With increasing globalization, multinational corporations can take advantage of differences in countries' corporate tax systems to reduce their overall tax liabilities. However, globalization can also lead to disputes about the correct tax liability for U.S. MNCs in different countries. GAO was asked to review how the United States administers the process for resolving international tax disputes when a U.S. MNC disagrees with a tax determination of another country.
This report (1) describes IRS's dispute resolution process, (2) assesses the information IRS provides to taxpayers about the process, and (3) assesses the extent to which IRS evaluates its management of dispute resolutions cases. GAO reviewed IRS guidance on the MAP process, interviewed IRS officials and compared IRS actions to federal standards for internal control and GAO's criteria for a good tax system. GAO analyzed MAP data for cases closed from 2013 to 2017 as well as a stratified random sample of MAP case files."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making a total of eight recommendations, including that IRS improve the clarity of information on the dispute resolution process, track and use dispute resolution case data, ensure the quality of case data, and analyze trends in dispute case characteristics. IRS agreed with GAO's recommendations and said it will provide detailed corrective action plans."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-81?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tax Refund Products
WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on tax-time financial products. The report (GAO-19-269) is titled "Tax Refund Products: Product Mix Has Evolved and IRS Should Improve Data Quality".The report was sent to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Trends in the market for tax-time financial products ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on tax-time financial products. The report (GAO-19-269) is titled "Tax Refund Products: Product Mix Has Evolved and IRS Should Improve Data Quality". The report was sent to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, on April 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Trends in the market for tax-time financial productssince 2012 include:
- the decline of refund anticipation loans (short-term loans subject to finance charges and fees),
- the rise in use of refund transfers (temporary bank accounts in which to receive funds), and
- the introduction of refund advances (loans with no fees or finance charges).
More recent product developments include increased online access to products for self-filers, higher refund advance amounts, the introduction of new products, and for tax year 2019, the reintroduction of fee-based loans.
However, GAO identified some limitations in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on product use, including over- or under-counting of certain types of products. IRS has not communicated these data issues to users and has not updated guidance to tax preparers on how to report new product use. As a result, data users (including federal agencies and policymakers) have inaccurate information to inform their findings and decision-making.
Lower-income and some minority taxpayers were more likely to use tax-time financial products, according to GAO analysis of 2017 data from IRS, the Bureau of the Census, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Specifically, taxpayers who made less than $40,000 were significantly more likely to use the products than those who made more. African-American households were 36 percent more likely to use the products than white households. Product users tend to have immediate cash needs, according to studies GAO reviewed. For these users, tax-time financial products generally provide easier access to cash and more cash at a lower cost than alternatives such as payday, pawnshop, or car title loans.
GAO's undercover visits with nine tax preparers, its review of selected provider websites, and review of documents obtained from selected banks and tax preparers found disclosures generally followed requirements for disclosing fees. However, disclosure practices by some paid tax preparers may pose challenges for consumers. For example:
Preparers in GAO's review generally indicated that they present taxpayers with almost all of the documents with fee information after their tax returns have been prepared and the preparers determined the taxpayers qualified for a tax-time financial product. The timing of these disclosures would pose a challenge for taxpayers looking to compare prices for different providers.
During six of nine undercover visits, GAO investigators explicitly requested literature on product fees but were not provided such information.
Refund transfer fee information on websites GAO reviewed sometimes was presented only after the tax preparation process started, was in small print, or could be found only after navigating several pages. As a result, taxpayers may face challenges comparing prices."
Why GAO Did This Study: "American taxpayers spent at least half a billion dollars in 2017 on financial products--issued by banks, through paid tax return preparers--to help them file taxes and get advances or loans against tax refunds.
GAO was asked to review tax-time financial products. Among other things, GAO (1) described market trends and examined IRS data, (2) described characteristics of product users and factors that influence product use, and (3) described product disclosure practices.
GAO reviewed fee and product usage data; conducted a multivariate regression analysis to determine user characteristics; and analyzed disclosures of selected providers that are national chains and those of their bank partners. GAO conducted nongeneralizeable undercover visits of nine randomly selected tax preparers in the Washington, D.C. area to understand how they communicate fees and terms to taxpayers. Preparers were selected to ensure a mixture of regulatory jurisdictions, among other factors. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance on the products, and interviewed IRS and other government officials and a nongeneralizeable selection of product and service providers, tax preparation companies, consumer groups, and academics."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations to IRS to make the collection of product use data more accurate and make data limitations known to users of the data. IRS concurred with both recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-269?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Education Department
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority open recommendations for the Education Department. The report (GAO-19-396SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Education".The report was sent to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified 5 priority open recommendations for the Department of Education (Education). Since then, Education has implemented 1 of those recommendations by taking action to strengthen its oversight ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority open recommendations for the Education Department. The report (GAO-19-396SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Education". The report was sent to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In February 2018, GAO identified 5 priority open recommendations for the Department of Education (Education). Since then, Education has implemented 1 of those recommendations by taking action to strengthen its oversightof the loan rehabilitation process and better ensure that borrowers who complete loan rehabilitation receive benefits, such as removing defaults from their credit reports.
In March 2019, GAO identified 4 additional priority open recommendations for Education, bringing the total number to 8. These recommendations involve two areas: 1) protecting the investment in higher education; and 2) ensuring the well-being and education of the nation's school age children.
Education'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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-396SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for HUD
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The report (GAO-19-380SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Housing and Urban Development".The report was sent to Ben Carson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified four priority recommendations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Since then, HUD has ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The report (GAO-19-380SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Housing and Urban Development". The report was sent to Ben Carson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified four priority recommendations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Since then, HUD hasimplemented two of those recommendations by, among other things, takings actions to improve oversight of federal awards and mitigate losses on troubled mortgages.
In April 2019, GAO identified seven additional priority recommendations to HUD, bringing the total number to nine. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Improving information technology management.
- Strengthening processes to address lead paint hazards.
- Enhancing oversight of the Moving to Work demonstration.
HUD's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-380SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Labor Department
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority open recommendations for the Labor Department. The report (GAO-19-395SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Labor".The report was sent to Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority open recommendations for the Labor Department. The report (GAO-19-395SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Labor". The report was sent to Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. 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 actionto 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-395SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for OPM
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Office of Personnel Management. The report (GAO-19-322SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Office of Personnel Management".The report was sent to Margaret Weichert, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 16 open priority recommendations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Since then, OPM has implemented 3 of those recommendations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on open priority recommendations for the Office of Personnel Management. The report (GAO-19-322SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Office of Personnel Management". The report was sent to Margaret Weichert, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 16 open priority recommendations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Since then, OPM has implemented 3 of those recommendationsby, among other things, taking actions to help agencies address workforce challenges and strengthen the government's ability to compete in the labor market.
In April 2019, GAO identified 5 additional open priority recommendations for OPM, bringing the total number to 18. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- addressing mission critical skills gaps.
- delivering agencies' missions in an era of constrained resources.
- improving the federal classification system.
- making hiring and special pay authorities more effective.
- improving Enterprise Human Resource Integration payroll data.
- addressing employee misconduct and improving performance management.
- strengthening controls over IT systems.
OPM's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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 that funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-322SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for SEC
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The report (GAO-19-379SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Securities and Exchange Commission".The report was sent to Jay Clayton, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 8 priority recommendations for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Since then, SEC has implemented 2 of those recommendations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The report (GAO-19-379SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Securities and Exchange Commission". The report was sent to Jay Clayton, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 8 priority recommendations for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Since then, SEC has implemented 2 of those recommendationsby, among other things, taking actions to conduct a skills gap analysis for five jobs to improve its training curriculum and strengthen its information security controls. We are not adding any new priority recommendations this year.
SEC's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority open recommendations are 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 priority recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-379SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Treasury Department
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on 24 priority recommendations for the Treasury Department. The report (GAO-19-325SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Treasury".The report was sent to Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 24 priority recommendations for the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Since then, Treasury has implemented two of those recommendations. Treasury updated its analysis of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on 24 priority recommendations for the Treasury Department. The report (GAO-19-325SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of the Treasury". The report was sent to Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 24 priority recommendations for the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Since then, Treasury has implemented two of those recommendations. Treasury updated its analysis ofpotential unexpended balances by estimating future expenditures of the Making Home Affordable program. Treasury also established a process to determine whether required agencies are submitting spending data in accordance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
In March 2019, GAO identified three additional priority recommendations for Treasury, bringing the total number to 25. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system
- Improving federal financial management
- Evaluating the performance and effectiveness of tax expenditures
- Improving information technology workforce planning
- Improving cybersecurity
- Improving interagency coordination to address national security concerns
- Implementing the DATA Act Treasury's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.
Treasury's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-325SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on VA Management Challenges
WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs management and oversight challenges. The report (GAO-19-422R) is titled "VA Management Challenges: Actions Needed to Improve Management and Oversight of VA Operations".The report was sent to Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, chairman, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veteran's Affairs, and Related Agencies, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, chairman, and Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, ranking member ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs management and oversight challenges. The report (GAO-19-422R) is titled "VA Management Challenges: Actions Needed to Improve Management and Oversight of VA Operations". The report was sent to Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, chairman, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veteran's Affairs, and Related Agencies, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, chairman, and Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, ranking memberof the House Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and Related Agencies, on April 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for providing benefits, including health care to over 9 million enrolled veterans, as well as various types of financial assistance and burial services. However, VA has faced longstanding challenges managing and overseeing its operations. As of January 9, 2019, VA had 223 open recommendations. GAO considers 30 of these recommendations to be the highest priority for VA to implement, as of March 2019. These recommendations are in the areas of veterans' access to timely health care, veterans' use of community-based health care, quality of care and patient safety, information technology, and national policy reform, among others.
Fully implementing these 30 priority recommendations could significantly improve VA's management and oversight of its operations. In addition, VA needs to make systemic changes to its management and oversight in order to improve the health care provided to our nation's veterans. GAO continues to be concerned about VA's ability to ensure that its resources are being used cost-effectively and efficiently to improve veterans' access to high quality and safe health care."
Why GAO Did This Study: "For several decades, GAO has issued hundreds of reports containing recommendations for VA to improve its management and oversight of the services it provides to veterans. The number of open recommendations to VA is one reason that GAO added VA health care to the GAO High-Risk List in 2015. In March 2019, GAO also added VA's acquisition management to the High-Risk List. Further, several other government-wide high-risk areas--including strategic human capital management, improving and modernizing federal disability programs, and ensuring cybersecurity of the nation--have direct implications for VA and its operations.
The Committee report to the Consolidated Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2018 required GAO to submit a list of the most significant VA management issues on which GAO has made recommendations. This report summarizes priority open recommendations GAO has made to address VA management and oversight challenges and improve operations, whether VA agreed with the recommendations, and what actions VA still needs to take to implement these recommendations.
To address this objective, GAO reviewed its products with open recommendations to identify recommendations that relate to the most significant VA management and oversight challenges. GAO used several criteria to identify these recommendations, including the potential to realize large dollar savings, aid in congressional decision-making, and eliminate management, fraud, and abuse. These are the same criteria that GAO used to identify the recommendations as high priority."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-422R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on FEMA Grants Modernization
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Grants Management Modernization program. The report (GAO-19-164) is titled "FEMA Grants Modernization: Improvements Needed to Strengthen Program Management and Cybersecurity".The report was sent to Rep. Donald Payne Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, on April 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Of six important leading practices for effective business process reengineering ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Grants Management Modernization program. The report (GAO-19-164) is titled "FEMA Grants Modernization: Improvements Needed to Strengthen Program Management and Cybersecurity". The report was sent to Rep. Donald Payne Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, on April 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Of six important leading practices for effective business process reengineeringand information technology (IT) requirements management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) fully implemented four and partially implemented two for the Grants Management Modernization (GMM) program (see table). Specifically, FEMA ensured senior leadership commitment, took steps to assess its business environment and performance goals, took recent actions to track progress in delivering IT requirements, and incorporated input from end user stakeholders. However, FEMA has not yet fully established plans for implementing new business processes or established complete traceability of IT requirements.
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-164?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Until FEMA fully implements the remaining two practices, it risks delivering an IT solution that does not fully modernize FEMA's grants management systems.
While GMM's initial May 2017 cost estimate of about $251 million was generally consistent with leading practices for a reliable, high-quality estimate, it no longer reflects current assumptions about the program. FEMA officials stated in December 2018 that they had completed a revised cost estimate, but it was undergoing departmental approval. GMM's program schedule was inconsistent with leading practices; of particular concern was that the program's final delivery date of September 2020 was not informed by a realistic assessment of GMM development activities, and rather was determined by imposing an unsubstantiated delivery date. Developing sound cost and schedule estimates is necessary to ensure that FEMA has a clear understanding of program risks.
Of five key cybersecurity practices, FEMA fully addressed three and partially addressed two for GMM. Specifically, it categorized GMM's system based on security risk, selected and implemented security controls, and monitored security controls on an ongoing basis. However, the program had not initially established corrective action plans for 13 medium- and low-risk vulnerabilities. This conflicts with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) guidance that specifies that corrective action plans must be developed for every weakness identified. Until FEMA, among other things, ensures that the program consistently follows the department's guidance on preparing corrective action plans for all security vulnerabilities, GMM's system will remain at increased risk of exploits."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FEMA, a component of DHS, annually awards billions of dollars in grants to help communities prepare for, mitigate the effects of, and recover from major disasters. However, FEMA's complex IT environment supporting grants management consists of many disparate systems. In 2008, the agency attempted to modernize these systems but experienced significant challenges. In 2015, FEMA initiated a new endeavor (the GMM program) aimed at streamlining and modernizing the grants management IT environment.
GAO was asked to review the GMM program. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which FEMA is implementing leading practices for reengineering its grants management processes and incorporating needs into IT requirements; (2) assess the reliability of the program's estimated costs and schedule; and (3) determine the extent to which FEMA is addressing key cybersecurity practices. GAO compared program documentation to leading practices for process reengineering and requirements management, cost and schedule estimation, and cybersecurity risk management, as established by the Software Engineering Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and GAO."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making eight recommendations to FEMA to implement leading practices related to reengineering processes, managing requirements, scheduling, and implementing cybersecurity. DHS concurred with all recommendations and provided estimated dates for implementing each of them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-164?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military Spouse Employment
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the My Career Advancement Account participation and awareness of the program. The report (GAO-19-320R) is titled "Military Spouse Employment: Participation in and Efforts to Promote the My Career Advancement Account Program".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on April ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the My Career Advancement Account participation and awareness of the program. The report (GAO-19-320R) is titled "Military Spouse Employment: Participation in and Efforts to Promote the My Career Advancement Account Program". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on April9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-320R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Columbia Class Submarine
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Columbia class submarine program. The report (GAO-19-497) is titled "Columbia Class Submarine: Overly Optimistic Cost Estimate Will Likely Lead to Budget Increases".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Columbia class submarine program. The report (GAO-19-497) is titled "Columbia Class Submarine: Overly Optimistic Cost Estimate Will Likely Lead to Budget Increases". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. MacThornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on April 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Navy's goal is to complete a significant amount of the Columbia class submarine's design--83 percent--before lead submarine construction begins in October 2020. The Navy established this goal based on lessons learned from another submarine program in an effort to help mitigate its aggressive construction schedule. Achieving this goal may prove to be challenging as the shipbuilder has to use a new design tool to complete an increasingly higher volume of complex design products (see figure). The shipbuilder has hired additional designers to improve its design progress. The Navy also plans to start advance construction of components in each major section of the submarine, beginning in fiscal year 2019, when less of the design will be complete.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-497?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Navy's $115 billion procurement cost estimate is not reliable partly because it is based on overly optimistic assumptions about the labor hours needed to construct the submarines. While the Navy analyzed cost risks, it did not include margin in its estimate for likely cost overruns. The Navy told us it will continue to update its lead submarine cost estimate, but an independent assessment of the estimate may not be complete in time to inform the Navy's 2021 budget request to Congress to purchase the lead submarine. Without these reviews, the cost estimate--and, consequently, the budget--may be unrealistic. A reliable cost estimate is especially important for a program of this size and complexity to help ensure that its budget is sufficient to execute the program as planned.
The Navy is using the congressionally-authorized National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to construct the Columbia class. The Fund allows the Navy to purchase material and start construction early on multiple submarines prior to receiving congressional authorization and funding for submarine construction. The Navy anticipates achieving savings through use of the Fund, such as buying certain components early and in bulk, but did not include the savings in its cost estimate. The Navy may have overestimated its savings as higher than those historically achieved by other such programs. Without an updated cost estimate and cost risk analysis, including a realistic estimate of savings, the fiscal year 2021 budget request may not reflect funding needed to construct the submarine."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Navy has identified the Columbia class submarine program as its top acquisition priority. It plans to invest over $100 billion to develop and purchase 12 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to replace aging Ohio class submarines by 2031.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and House Report 115-200 included provisions that GAO review the status of the program. This report examines (1) the Navy's progress and challenges, if any, in meeting design goals and preparing for lead submarine construction; (2) the reliability of the Navy's cost estimate; and (3) how the Navy is implementing a special fund and associated authorities to construct Columbia class submarines.
GAO reviewed Navy and shipbuilder progress reports, program schedules, and construction plans. GAO assessed the Navy's cost estimate and compared it to best practices for cost estimating. GAO also reviewed certain Navy funding and acquisition authorities and interviewed program officials.
This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in March 2019. Information that the Department of Defense (DOD) deemed sensitive has been omitted."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations: that the Navy update the lead submarine cost estimate with cost risk analysis using current cost data, develop a realistic estimate of savings from use of the Fund's authorities, and use this updated cost estimate to inform its budget request for lead submarine construction. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-497?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Ground Combat Forces
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the military services' budgeting processes to build unit-level training readiness. The report (GAO-19-233) is titled "Ground Combat Forces: The Marine Corps Should Take Actions to Track Training Funds and Link Them to Readiness".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the military services' budgeting processes to build unit-level training readiness. The report (GAO-19-233) is titled "Ground Combat Forces: The Marine Corps Should Take Actions to Track Training Funds and Link Them to Readiness". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee onDefense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on April 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Marine Corps cannot fully track all unit-level training funds for ground combat forces through the budget cycle. According to GAO's analysis of data provided by the Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs), the principal warfighting organization for the Marine Corps, units can track some, but not all, funds for training exercises from the budget request through use of the funds. The Marine Corps cannot fully track all training funds through the budget cycle, in part, because it has not established the consistent use of fiscal codes. Two key fiscal codes that officials identified as relevant to track funds for unit-level training are the Marine Corps Programming Code (MCPC) and the Special Interest Code (SIC). The Marine Corps uses MCPCs to program funds, but GAO found that when the Marine Corps spends those funds, it uses a different set of fiscal codes. This makes it difficult to link the programmed intent of funds to the execution of those funds. The Marine Corps uses SICs to track funds associated with training exercises, but GAO found that units do not use SICs consistently. For example, officials at all three MEFs told GAO that units generate SICs for large-scale training exercises, but may not do so for small-scale exercises. The Marine Corps is taking steps to align fiscal codes across the budget cycle, but this effort is in its early stages and will not include MCPCs, and may not address the inconsistent use of SICs. Without the ability to track unit-level training funds through the budget cycle, the Marine Corps lacks readily available data to assess whether funds were obligated consistent with their programmed intent and to adequately forecast and defend budget requests for training.
Although internal Marine Corps assessments and guidance state that the Marine Corps needs an enterprise-wide process to link resources to readiness, the Marine Corps has made little progress establishing a link between training funds for ground combat forces and readiness. The Marine Corps identified challenges with linking funds to readiness in a series of reports from fiscal years 2009 through 2014, citing factors such as stove-piped efforts and limited data availability and quality. Guidance directed that the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources organize quality coordination events with key stakeholders to synchronize activities within major lines of effort, but officials from this office stated that they have not been given the authority to direct the various efforts. Therefore, challenges have persisted, in part, because the Marine Corps has not designated a single entity with authority to oversee and coordinate efforts to link training funds to readiness. In the absence of a single oversight entity, two separate and overlapping tools were developed--the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) tool and the Predictive Readiness Model (PRM). Although each tool had its own particular use and design, both were intended to link resources to readiness. Moreover, both faced similar challenges, such as data quality limitations, and relied on some of the same data sources. The Marine Corps recently assessed and discontinued development of PRM, however, it has not assessed C2RAM and how it could support an enterprise wide performance management process linking resources to readiness. Without dedicating a single entity with authority, and conducting an assessment of C2RAM, the Marine Corps is unlikely to make headway in addressing the challenges posed by trying to link resources to readiness."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Training is key to building readiness--the military's ability to fight and meet the demands of its missions. Through the Department of Defense (DOD) budget cycle, the Marine Corps estimates or programs its funding needs for training and spends funds to accomplish its training mission. Questions have been raised about whether the Marine Corps' training budget estimates are sufficiently detailed to determine training costs at the unit level or the expected readiness generated by those costs.
House Report 115-200 included a provision for GAO to examine the military services' budgeting processes to build unit-level training readiness. This report examines the extent to which the Marine Corps (1) tracks unit-level training funds for ground combat forces through the budget cycle, and (2) links ground combat forces' unit-level training funds to readiness. GAO analyzed budget data and studies conducted by the Marine Corps and others, examined tools used by units to link training funds with readiness, and interviewed knowledgeable officials at various levels in the Marine Corps."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Marine Corps (1) tracks training funds through the budget cycle, (2) designates a single entity to oversee establishment of a process that links resources to readiness, and (3) conducts an assessment of C2RAM. DOD concurred, and based on its comments, GAO modified one recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-233?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Recommendations for DOD
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Defense. The report (GAO-19-366SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Defense".The report was sent to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 85 priority recommendations for the Department of Defense (DOD). Since then, DOD has implemented 17 of those recommendations, and GAO has closed one as unimplemented because DOD ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Defense. The report (GAO-19-366SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Defense". The report was sent to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 85 priority recommendations for the Department of Defense (DOD). Since then, DOD has implemented 17 of those recommendations, and GAO has closed one as unimplemented because DODactions made it no longer applicable.
In March 2019, GAO identified 24 additional priority recommendations for DOD, bringing the total number of open priority recommendations to 91. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- Acquisitions and Contract Management
- Readiness
- Building Capacity to Drive Enterprise-wide Business Reform
- Defense Headquarters
- Health Care
- Cybersecurity
- Support Infrastructure
- Financial Management
- Preventing Sexual Harassment
DOD's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-366SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Recommendations for VA
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report (GAO-19-358SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Veterans Affairs".The report was sent to Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Since then, VA has implemented 5 of those recommendations by taking actions to enhance services ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report (GAO-19-358SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Veterans Affairs". The report was sent to Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Since then, VA has implemented 5 of those recommendations by taking actions to enhance servicesfor veterans readjusting to civilian life, holding VA medical centers accountable for assessing the competencies of its human resources staff, and improving its ability to manage a major information technology project, among other things. As a result, VA improved oversight and accountability, and made progress in addressing long-standing challenges with providing health care and other VA services to veterans.In addition to the 5 recommendations that VA has implemented, GAO closed 1 priority recommendation as unimplemented, because it was based on a program that has recently undergone significant statutory changes.
In March 2019, GAO identified 10 additional priority recommendations for VA, bringing the total number to 30. These recommendations involve improving:
- oversight of veterans' access to timely health care;
- oversight of veterans' community care program;
- management of human capital;
- management of information technology;
- appeals reform for disability benefits;
- oversight to ensure safe, high quality care for veterans;
- management of national policy documents;
- management of contracting policies and practices; and
- management of VA's national cemetery program.
VA's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority recommendations are open GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies, because their implementation couldsave 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 that funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-358SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on SBA's Key Programs with Historically Black Colleges, Universities
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal priorities and the Small Business Administration goals related to working with historically black colleges and universities. The report (GAO-19-328R) is titled "Small Business Administration: Key Entrepreneurship Programs and Activities Do Not Specifically Target Historically Black Colleges and Universities, but Collaboration Exists with Some Schools".The report was sent to Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-North Carolina, Rep. Donald ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal priorities and the Small Business Administration goals related to working with historically black colleges and universities. The report (GAO-19-328R) is titled "Small Business Administration: Key Entrepreneurship Programs and Activities Do Not Specifically Target Historically Black Colleges and Universities, but Collaboration Exists with Some Schools". The report was sent to Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-North Carolina, Rep. DonaldS. Beyer Jr., D-Virginia, Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Alabama, Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indiana, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-New York, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Florida, Rep. Henry C. Johnson Jr., D-Georgia, Rep. Trent Kelly, R-Mississippi, Rep. Al Lawson, D-Florida, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, D-New York, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Massachusetts, Rep. David E. Price, D-North Carolina, Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, D-Louisiana, Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Delaware, Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal priorities for working with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), as expressed in Executive Order 13779 (2017), include helping young adults by strengthening HBCU participation in federal programs. In response to the Executive Order, the Small Business Administration (SBA) identified two priorities in its 2018 agency plan to help increase HBCU participation and capacity in relation to its programs: (1) provide HBCUs with information on accessing and competing for federal grants and contracts, and (2) enhance HBCUs' capabilities in helping young adults.
SBA's key programs and outreach activities that foster entrepreneurship do not specifically target HBCUs, but collaboration exists with some HBCUs. For example, some HBCUs host Small Business Development Centers (SBDC), have co-sponsored activities, and signed strategic alliance memorandums. SBDCs provide technical assistance to small business and aspiring entrepreneurs and 18 HBCUs are in the SBDC network. Several HBCUs signed co-sponsorship agreements with SBA to organize activities to foster entrepreneurship. Twenty-four HBCUs have strategic alliance memorandums with SBA to facilitate working relationships."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) play an important and unique role in the higher education system. For example, more than one-third of African-Americans who received a doctorate in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics in 2016 obtained their undergraduate degrees from an HBCU, and many also received their doctorates from an HBCU. The White House Initiative on HBCUs was established in 1980 as a government-wide effort to strengthen the capacity of HBCUs, including their ability to participate in federal programs.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) mission is to help Americans start, build, and grow businesses. SBA also works with public- and private-sector partners, including colleges and universities, to strengthen or expand businesses development and foster entrepreneurship. However, little is known about the extent of SBA's activities and partnership programs with the 101 HBCUs, as of December 2018. This report examines (1) federal priorities and SBA goals related to working with HBCUs, and (2) SBA's key programs and outreach activities for fostering entrepreneurship, particularly with HBCUs, and what is known about HBCU participation in these programs and activities."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-328R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Streamlining Government
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress and challenges associated with federal shared services initiatives for selected human resources and financial management activities. The report (GAO-19-94) is titled "Streamlining Government: OMB and GSA Could Strengthen Their Approach to Implementing a New Shared Services Plan".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Rep. Gerald "Gerry" Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress and challenges associated with federal shared services initiatives for selected human resources and financial management activities. The report (GAO-19-94) is titled "Streamlining Government: OMB and GSA Could Strengthen Their Approach to Implementing a New Shared Services Plan". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Rep. Gerald "Gerry" Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight andGovernment Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Rep. Robin L. Kelly, D-Illinois, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Efforts to promote greater use of shared services for human resources (HR) and financial management activities resulted in some cost savings and efficiency gains, but challenges impeded more widespread adoption. For example, the Office of Personnel Management estimates that shared services for HR, including payroll resulted in more than $1 billion in government-wide cost-savings and cost avoidance between fiscal years 2002 and 2015. However, challenges include limited oversight, demand uncertainty among providers, and limited choices for customers. To address these challenges, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), as the shared services initiative leaders, introduced a new marketplace model in 2018 meant to better meet the needs of customers and service providers by offering more choices for purchasing shared services (see figure). They are also working on plans to create Service Management Offices and Task Order Review Boards to work with agencies to adopt standards for common management activities.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-94?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO found that OMB and GSA were following some key change management practices such as improving interagency collaboration in their design of the marketplace model. However, implementation weaknesses may limit their success. For example, OMB and GSA do not have a plan to monitor the implementation of NewPay, a 2018 payroll shared services initiative designed to determine how well the new model works. A monitoring plan which includes performance goals and milestones could help OMB and GSA avoid gaps in service or costly delays as agencies transition to the new model for obtaining shared services."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government can reduce duplicative efforts and free up resources for mission-critical activities by consolidating mission-support services that multiple agencies need--such as payroll or travel--within a smaller number of providers so they can be shared among agencies. However, migrating to a shared services provider has not consistently increased cost savings, efficiencies, or customer satisfaction, according to OMB and others who have observed these migrations.
GAO was asked to review previous shared services initiatives. This report: (1) identifies the progress and challenges associated with federal shared services initiatives for selected HR and financial management activities and (2) assesses OMB and GSA's actions to address those challenges. GAO analyzed planning and performance documents and interviewed officials from selected customer and provider agencies and from agencies involved with shared services policy and guidance. GAO also interviewed subject-matter experts familiar with shared services. GAO reviewed steps OMB and GSA are taking to identify and address challenges from past migrations to improve shared services performance."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to OMB including to work with GSA to finalize a plan for monitoring the implementation of NewPay, among other actions. OMB staff did not comment on GAO's recommendations, but noted that OMB may update its shared services policy in the future."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-94?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Workforce Automation
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on workforce issues related to the adoption of advanced technologies. The report (GAO-19-257) is titled "Workforce Automation: Better Data Needed to Assess and Plan for Effects of Advanced Technologies on Jobs".The report was sent to Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. Suzan K. DelBene, D-Washington, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Although existing federal data provide useful information on the U.S. workforce, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on workforce issues related to the adoption of advanced technologies. The report (GAO-19-257) is titled "Workforce Automation: Better Data Needed to Assess and Plan for Effects of Advanced Technologies on Jobs". The report was sent to Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. Suzan K. DelBene, D-Washington, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. 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.
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."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-257?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-257?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Aviation Security
WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Transportation Security Administration's covert test programs. The report (GAO-19-374) is titled "Aviation Security: TSA Improved Covert Testing but Needs to Conduct More Risk-Informed Tests and Address Vulnerabilities".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, ranking member of the House Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Transportation and Safety, Rep. Elijah Cummings, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Transportation Security Administration's covert test programs. The report (GAO-19-374) is titled "Aviation Security: TSA Improved Covert Testing but Needs to Conduct More Risk-Informed Tests and Address Vulnerabilities". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, ranking member of the House Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Transportation and Safety, Rep. Elijah Cummings,D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. John Katko, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation, and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Two offices within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) conduct covert tests at U.S. airports--Inspection and Security Operations. The Department of Homeland Security requires that agencies use risk information to make decisions, and TSA issues annual risk assessments of threats that its program offices should consult when making risk-based decisions, such as what covert tests to conduct. Of the two TSA offices that conduct covert tests, Inspection officials used TSA's risk assessment to guide their efforts. However, Security Operations officials relied largely on their professional judgment in making decisions about what scenarios to consider for covert testing. By not using a risk-informed approach, TSA has limited assurance that Security Operations is targeting the most likely threats.
Both Inspection and Security Operations have implemented processes to ensure that their covert tests produce quality results. However, GAO found that only Inspection has established a new process that has resulted in quality test results. Specifically, for the two reports Inspection completed for testing conducted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 using its new process, GAO found that the results were generally consistent with quality analysis and reporting practices. On the other hand, Security Operations has not been able to ensure the quality of its covert test results, and GAO identified a number of factors that could be compromising the quality of these results. Unless TSA assesses the current practices used at airports to conduct tests, and identifies the factors that may be impacting the quality of covert testing conducted by TSA officials at airports, it will have limited assurance about the reliability of the test results it is using to address vulnerabilities.
In 2015, TSA established the Security Vulnerability Management Process to leverage agency-wide resources to address systemic vulnerabilities; however, this process has not yet resolved any identified security vulnerabilities. Since 2015, Inspection officials submitted nine security vulnerabilities identified through covert tests for mitigation, and as of September 2018, none had been formally resolved through this process. GAO found that in some cases, it took TSA officials overseeing the process up to 7 months to assign an office responsible to begin mitigation efforts. In part, this is because TSA has not established time frames and milestones for this process or established procedures to ensure milestones are met, in accordance with best practices for program management. Without doing so, TSA cannot ensure efficient and effective progress in addressing security vulnerabilities.
This is a public version of a classified report that GAO issued in January 2019. Information that TSA deemed classified or sensitive security information, such as the results of TSA's covert testing and details about TSA's screening procedures, have been omitted."
Why GAO Did This Study: "TSA uses covert testing to identify potential vulnerabilities in checkpoint and checked baggage screening systems at U.S. airports. In 2015, TSA identified deficiencies in its covert testing process, and in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General's covert testing identified deficiencies in screener performance. Since these findings, TSA has taken steps intended to improve its covert test processes and to use test results to better address vulnerabilities.
GAO was asked to review TSA's covert test programs, including how the results are used to address vulnerabilities. This report analyzes the extent to which (1) TSA covert tests are risk-informed, (2) TSA covert tests for fiscal years 2016 through March 2018 produced quality information, and (3) TSA uses covert test results to address any identified security vulnerabilities.
GAO observed 26 TSA covert tests, reviewed TSA guidance, analyzed test data for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and through March 2018, and interviewed TSA officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making nine recommendations, including that TSA use a risk-informed approach for selecting covert test scenarios, take steps to improve the quality of airport covert test results, and establish time frames and milestones for the key steps in its vulnerability management process. TSA concurred with all nine GAO recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-374?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Combating Nuclear Terrorism
WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Nuclear Regulatory Commission's security requirements for high-risk radioactive material. The report (GAO-19-468) is titled "Combating Nuclear Terrorism: NRC Needs to Take Additional Actions to Ensure the Security of High-Risk Radioactive Material".The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Nuclear Regulatory Commission's security requirements for high-risk radioactive material. The report (GAO-19-468) is titled "Combating Nuclear Terrorism: NRC Needs to Take Additional Actions to Ensure the Security of High-Risk Radioactive Material". The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho,ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The 18 experts at a meeting GAO convened with the National Academies of Sciences generally agreed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assessment of risks of radioactive material does not include all relevant criteria. NRC limits its criteria to prompt fatalities and deterministic health effects from radiation, which, according to the experts and recent studies, are unlikely to result from a radiological dispersal device (RDD). Two studies from Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) measuring consequences of RDDs, released in 2017 and 2018, found that there would be no immediate fatalities from radiation. The experts at the meeting generally agreed that socioeconomic effects (e.g., relocations and clean-up costs) and fatalities that could result from evacuations are the most relevant criteria for evaluating the risks of radioactive material. The two Sandia studies found that a large RDD could cause about $30 billion in damage and 1,500 fatalities from the evacuation, and a considerably smaller RDD could cause $24 billion in damage and 800 fatalities from the evacuation. By considering socioeconomic impacts and fatalities resulting from evacuations in its criteria, NRC would have better assurance it was considering the more likely and more significant consequences of an RDD.
NRC's 2016 report evaluating its security requirements for high-risk radioactive material, required by Public Law 113-235, considered only the security of larger quantities of such material and not smaller quantities. Experts who attended GAO's meeting stated, and two 2018 Sandia studies agree, that if smaller quantities of certain radioactive material were used in an RDD, the impacts would be comparable to an RDD with a considerably larger amount of such material. For example, a 2018 study from Sandia found that malicious use of certain radioactive materials in smaller quantities could cause significant socioeconomic consequences. By requiring additional security measures for these smaller quantities of high-risk material, NRC can have better assurance that its security requirements are sufficient to secure all high-risk radioactive material from theft and use in an RDD."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NRC is responsible for regulating the security of radioactive material in the U.S. Failure to secure this material could result in an RDD causing socioeconomic damage. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235) includes a provision for GAO to review NRC's security requirements for high-risk radioactive material. This report examines, among other things, (1) the extent to which radioactive security experts agreed that NRC's assessment of risk includes all relevant criteria, and (2) NRC's 2016 evaluation of its security requirements for high-risk radioactive material. GAO reviewed NRC policies and procedures, worked with the National Academies of Sciences to convene a meeting with 18 experts in radioactive security, and reviewed 3 recent Sandia studies. GAO used the views of security experts to define high risk, and they generally agreed that high risk includes both larger and some smaller quantities of radioactive materials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to NRC, including that it consider socioeconomic consequences and fatalities from evacuations as criteria for determining security measures and require additional security measures for smaller quantities of high-risk material. NRC generally disagreed with the recommendations, stating that GAO's evidence does not provide a sufficient basis for recommended changes. GAO continues to believe these recommendations are important."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-468?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Student Aid
WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the Second Chance Pell pilot program. The report (GAO-19-130) is titled "Federal Student Aid: Actions Needed to Evaluate Pell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated Students".The report was sent to Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, on March 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Education (Education) selected 64 schools across 26 states ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the Second Chance Pell pilot program. The report (GAO-19-130) is titled "Federal Student Aid: Actions Needed to Evaluate Pell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated Students". The report was sent to Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, on March 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Education (Education) selected 64 schools across 26 statesto participate in the Second Chance Pell pilot, and participating schools collaborated with prisons and other stakeholders to implement the pilot. Across the pilot's first 2 years, schools awarded approximately $35.6 million in Pell grants to about 8,800 incarcerated students.
Officials from the 12 schools GAO interviewed reported experiencing some challenges implementing the pilot. First, school officials said they experienced challenges establishing incarcerated applicants' eligibility for Pell grants, since some applicants had not registered for Selective Service and some had an existing federal student loan in default. However, many applicants were able to complete the necessary steps--such as making a set number of payments on their defaulted loans--to reestablish eligibility. Second, obtaining documents from incarcerated applicants to support verification--which helps the department's efforts to reduce improper payments of federal student aid--was another challenge officials reported. School officials also said that providing college classes in prisons required them to develop new processes and creative solutions to overcome technology limitations, space limitations, and the transfer of students to other prisons. Officials from 8 of 12 schools told GAO they hired additional staff or developed new approaches in response to their pilot efforts.
Education monitors the pilot by collecting data from participating schools, but had not established how it intended to evaluate Second Chance Pell or measure the pilot's performance against its objectives. Education is required to review and evaluate experiments under the Experimental Sites Initiative--of which Second Chance Pell is a part--and make recommendations, as appropriate, to improve the delivery of federal student aid. In its comments on the draft report, Education stated that it was planning to evaluate the pilot, consistent with the pilot's objectives, and described a number of steps it was taking to do so. Completing this evaluation can help ensure policymakers have the information needed to make decisions about the future of Pell grants for incarcerated students."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Incarcerated students are generally prohibited from receiving Pell grants, which provide need-based federal financial aid to low-income undergraduate students. However, Education has the authority to waive specific statutory or regulatory requirements for providing federal student aid at schools approved to participate in its experiments. Accordingly, the department initiated the multi-year Second Chance Pell pilot in 2015 to test whether allowing incarcerated individuals to receive Pell grants increases their participation in higher education programs and influences their academic and life outcomes, or creates any obstacles to schools' administration of federal financial aid programs.
GAO was asked to review the Second Chance Pell pilot. This report examines (1) actions Education, schools, and other stakeholders have taken to implement the pilot; (2) experiences participating schools are having as they implement the pilot; and (3) how Education is monitoring and evaluating the pilot and whether opportunities for improvement exist.
GAO analyzed summary-level Education data from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and interviewed a non-generalizable sample of 12 schools (and associated prison partners) that were selected for variation in type of school (i.e., public and private nonprofit), type of prisons served, and other variables. GAO also interviewed Education officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education complete its evaluation of the pilot to report on its findings and conclusions. Education concurred, with clarification, and stated that it had actions underway to evaluate the pilot."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-130?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Scientific Integrity Policies
WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' scientific integrity policies. The report (GAO-19-265) is titled "Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity of Federal Research".The report was sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The nine selected agencies GAO reviewed have taken various actions to help achieve the objectives of their scientific ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' scientific integrity policies. The report (GAO-19-265) is titled "Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity of Federal Research". The report was sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The nine selected agencies GAO reviewed have taken various actions to help achieve the objectives of their scientificintegrity policies in three areas:
Educating staff. Seven of the nine agencies have taken some actions to educate and communicate to staff about their policies, consistent with the 2007 America COMPETES Act. However, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), which follows the Department of Energy's (DOE) policy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have not taken action.
Providing oversight. Eight of the nine agencies have a designated official, or the equivalent, to oversee implementation of their scientific integrity policies. However, FE does not have such an official because DOE has not appointed one and currently has no plans or timeframe to do so, although DOE policy states that DOE will appoint an official for oversight.
Monitoring and evaluating implementation. Four of the nine agencies have monitored and evaluated implementation of their scientific integrity policies, consistent with federal standards that call for such control activities. However, FE, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NIST, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have not undertaken such activities.
Seven of the nine agencies have specific, documented procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations of their scientific integrity policies. Although the details of agencies' procedures vary, they generally include the steps shown below. However, two agencies--FE, following DOE's policy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)--do not have documented procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations. A 2009 presidential memo on scientific integrity states that agencies should have procedures to identify and address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised. Without procedures, FE and NASA do not have assurance that their staff understand how to report allegations and that investigations are conducted consistently.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Note: The seven agencies that have procedures similar to this figure are the Agricultural Research Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2007, the America COMPETES Act required the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to take actions to enhance the integrity of federal scientific research. In 2010, OSTP provided guidance to federal agencies on developing scientific integrity policies. The guidance states that, among other things, agencies are to ensure that political appointees should not suppress or alter scientific findings.
GAO was asked to review agencies' scientific integrity policies and actions taken to implement them. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which selected agencies (1) have taken actions to achieve the objectives of their scientific integrity policies and (2) have procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations of their scientific integrity policies. GAO selected the following nine agencies for review: Agricultural Research Service, Environmental Protection Agency, FAA, FE, National Institutes of Health, NASA, NIST, NOAA, and USGS. GAO analyzed the selected agencies' scientific integrity policies and interviewed agency officials, among other things."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 10 recommendations to six agencies to address specific issues related to educating staff, providing oversight, monitoring and evaluating policy implementation, and developing procedures to identify and address policy violations. The six agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations and identified actions they plan to take to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on 2018 Lobbying Disclosure
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on lobbyists' compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The report (GAO-19-357) is titled "2018 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Roy Blunt, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on lobbyists' compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The report (GAO-19-357) is titled "2018 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Roy Blunt,R-Missouri, chairman, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Illinois, ranking member House Administration Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, chairman, Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on March 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "For the 2018 reporting period, most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports and political contributions (LD-203) reports filed during the third and fourth quarter of 2017 and the first and second quarter of 2018, GAO estimates that:
- 92 percent of lobbyists who filed new registrations also filed LD-2 reports as required for the quarter in which they first registered (the figure below describes the filing process and enforcement);
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-357?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
- 97 percent of all lobbyists who filed could provide documentation for lobbying income and expenses. However, an estimated 20 percent of these LD-2 reports were not properly rounded to the nearest $10,000;
- 19 percent of all LD-2 reports did not properly disclose one or more previously held covered positions as required; and
- 33 percent of LD-203 reports were missing reportable contributions, which was a statistically significant increase compared to prior years.
Except as noted above, these findings are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued from 2010 through 2017.
GAO continues to find that most lobbyists in the sample reported some level of ease in complying with disclosure requirements and in understanding the definitions of terms used in the reporting. However, some disclosure reports demonstrate compliance difficulties, such as failure to disclose covered positions or misreporting of income or expenses.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources to enforce compliance. USAO continued its efforts to resolve noncompliance through filing reports or terminating registrations, as well as imposing civil and criminal penalties."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The LDA, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain political contributions. The law also includes a provision for GAO to annually audit lobbyists' compliance with the LDA. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements; (2) identify any challenges or potential improvements to compliance that lobbyists report; and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to USAO in its role in enforcing LDA compliance. This is GAO's 12th annual report under the provision.
GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 99 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2017, and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2018. GAO also reviewed two random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2017 and midyear 2018. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 49,918 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 29,798 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO also interviewed USAO officials.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment. The agency stated that it did not have comments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-357?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Behavioral Health
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the health care costs associated with untreated behavioral health conditions in adults. The report (GAO-19-274) is titled "Behavioral Health: Research on Health Care Costs of Untreated Conditions is Limited".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Massachusetts, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the health care costs associated with untreated behavioral health conditions in adults. The report (GAO-19-274) is titled "Behavioral Health: Research on Health Care Costs of Untreated Conditions is Limited". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Massachusetts,Rep. Doris Matsui, D-California, and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, on Feb. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "According to 2017 survey data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an estimated 56.8 million adults had a behavioral health condition--that is, a substance use or mental health condition. An estimated 39.7 million of these individuals did not receive treatment for their behavioral health condition in the past year, with more than 80 percent not perceiving a need for treatment. The survey also indicates the reasons why individuals who perceived a need for treatment did not receive it, including cost, stigma, and access challenges, such as not knowing where to go for treatment.
Not treating behavioral health conditions can lead to other health care costs, such as the costs of emergency care for an overdose. However, GAO found that research on such costs is limited and there is no generally accepted estimate of all the health care costs associated with untreated behavioral health conditions. According to experts GAO met with, available research in this area is limited by methodological challenges, including determining which health care costs can be attributed to an untreated behavioral condition, and by limited data on the full prevalence of certain behavioral health conditions. The 29 studies GAO reviewed compared the health care costs associated with treating and not treating certain behavioral health conditions in adults. These studies were limited in scope--focusing, for example, on specific behavioral health conditions and specific geographic areas. Among these 29 studies,
* 20 found higher health care costs associated with untreated adults,
* 6 found that health care costs were lower for untreated adults, and
* 3 reported either mixed results or no observable difference.
Experts and stakeholders cited reasons why untreated behavioral health conditions can be associated with higher health care costs. For example, adults with untreated behavioral conditions may have other related, physical health conditions that may not be well managed and have their own costs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Behavioral health conditions affect tens of millions of Americans. When these conditions go untreated, they can lead to other health care costs, some of which may be borne by publicly-funded health care programs. For example, those with untreated behavioral health conditions may also require treatment for other medical conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease, which may be exacerbated by the untreated behavioral health condition.
GAO was asked to describe what is known about adults with untreated behavioral health conditions. This report examines (1) reasons why some adults with behavioral health conditions do not receive treatment for their condition, and (2) what is known about the health care costs associated with untreated behavioral health conditions in adults.
GAO reviewed SAMHSA's most recent survey data from its annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health. GAO also conducted literature searches and reviewed articles on 1) reasons why adults do not receive treatment for their behavioral health conditions and 2) the health care costs associated with untreated behavioral health conditions. In addition, GAO moderated a meeting with behavioral health experts--selected with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine--to discuss behavioral health conditions and health care costs associated with them. GAO also interviewed federal officials and other relevant stakeholders. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-274?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Foreign Asset Reporting
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act implementation and the effects on U.S. citizens living abroad. The report (GAO-19-180) is titled "Foreign Asset Reporting: Actions Needed to Enhance Compliance Efforts, Eliminate Overlapping Requirements, and Mitigate Burdens on U.S. Persons Abroad".The report was sent to Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Rep. Michael Quigley, D-Illinois, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act implementation and the effects on U.S. citizens living abroad. The report (GAO-19-180) is titled "Foreign Asset Reporting: Actions Needed to Enhance Compliance Efforts, Eliminate Overlapping Requirements, and Mitigate Burdens on U.S. Persons Abroad". The report was sent to Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Rep. Michael Quigley, D-Illinois,chairman, and Rep. Tom Graves, R-Georgia, ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, on April 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Data quality and management issues have limited the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) efforts to improve taxpayer compliance using foreign financial asset data collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Specifically, IRS has had difficulties matching the information reported by foreign financial institutions (FFI) with U.S. taxpayers' tax filings due to missing or inaccurate Taxpayer Identification Numbers provided by FFIs. Further, IRS lacks access to consistent and complete data on foreign financial assets and other data reported in tax filings by U.S. persons, in part, because some IRS databases do not store foreign asset data reported from paper filings. IRS has also stopped pursuing a comprehensive plan to leverage FATCA data to improve taxpayer compliance because, according to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents to focus on individual compliance campaigns. Ensuring access to consistent and complete data collected from U.S. persons--and employing a plan to leverage such data--would help IRS better leverage such campaigns and increase taxpayer compliance.
Due to overlapping statutory reporting requirements, IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)--both within the Department of the Treasury (Treasury)--collect duplicative foreign financial account and other asset information from U.S. persons. Consequently, in tax years 2015 and 2016, close to 75 percent of U.S. persons who reported information on foreign accounts and other assets on their tax returns also filed a separate form with FinCEN. The overlapping requirements increase the compliance burden on U.S. persons and add complexity that can create confusion, potentially resulting in inaccurate or unnecessary reporting. Modifying the statutes governing the requirements to allow for the sharing of FATCA information for the prevention and detection of financial crimes would eliminate the need for duplicative reporting. This is similar to other statutory allowances for IRS to disclose return information for other purposes, such as for determining Social Security income tax withholding.
According to documents GAO reviewed, and focus groups and interviews GAO conducted, FFIs closed some U.S. persons' existing accounts or denied them opportunities to open new accounts after FATCA was enacted due to increased costs, and risks they pose under FATCA reporting requirements. According to Department of State (State) data, annual approvals of renunciations of U.S. citizenship increased from 1,601 to 4,449--or nearly 178 percent--from 2011 through 2016, attributable in part to the difficulties cited above.
Treasury previously established joint strategies with State to address challenges U.S. persons faced in accessing foreign financial services. However, it lacks a collaborative mechanism to coordinate efforts with other agencies to address ongoing challenges in accessing such services or obtaining Social Security Numbers. Implementation of a formal means to collaboratively address burdens faced by Americans abroad from FATCA can help federal agencies develop more effective solutions to mitigate such burdens by monitoring and sharing information on such issues, and jointly developing and implementing steps to address them."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Concerns over efforts by U.S. taxpayers to use offshore accounts to hide income or evade taxes contributed to the passage of FATCA in 2010, which sought to create greater transparency and accountability over offshore assets held by U.S. taxpayers.
House Report 114-624 included a provision for GAO to evaluate FATCA implementation and determine the effects of FATCA on U.S. citizens living abroad. GAO--among other things--(1) assessed IRS's efforts to use FATCA-related information to improve taxpayer compliance; (2) examined the extent to which Treasury administers overlapping reporting requirements on financial assets held overseas; and (3) examined the effects of FATCA implementation unique to U.S. persons living abroad.
GAO reviewed applicable documentation; analyzed tax data; and interviewed officials from IRS, other federal agencies and organizations, selected tax practitioners, and more than 20 U.S. persons living overseas."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making one matter for congressional consideration to address overlap in foreign asset reporting requirements. GAO is making seven recommendations to IRS and other agencies to enhance IRS's ability to leverage FATCA data to enforce compliance, address unnecessary reporting, and better collaborate to mitigate burdens on U.S. persons living abroad. State and Social Security Administration agreed with GAO's recommendations. Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-180?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Nuclear Security Enterprise
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's management of data calls to management and operating contractors in the nuclear security enterprise. The report (GAO-19-286R) is titled "Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA's Management of Data Calls to Contractors".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's management of data calls to management and operating contractors in the nuclear security enterprise. The report (GAO-19-286R) is titled "Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA's Management of Data Calls to Contractors". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of theHouse Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, on Feb. 26. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Information on the number of data calls and any changes over time is not available because the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its seven management and operating (M&O) contractors have different definitions of data calls and do not routinely track such information. Data calls are broadly defined as requests or requirements from the government to obtain information from M&O contractors for the purposes of performing oversight and supporting programmatic work. Some NNSA officials and M&O contractor representatives GAO interviewed used this broad definition of data calls to include any request for information-including those required under contracts-while other officials and representatives considered only ad hoc requests for information as a data call. Further, NNSA officials said that they do not routinely track data calls sent to contractors, and contractor representatives said they do not routinely track data calls across each site they manage. M&O contractor representatives did not identify any specific types of data calls they currently consider to be burdensome. However, contractor representatives GAO interviewed identified broad aspects of data calls that might contribute to them seeming burdensome, such as being non-routine in nature or having short deadlines for response.
In response to several recent reports that identified data calls as a burdensome practice, NNSA has taken several actions to help reduce the time and resources M&O contractors spend responding to data calls. According to NNSA officials GAO interviewed and agency documents GAO reviewed, NNSA has taken actions in four main areas since 2015 to better manage the data calls sent to its contractors. These areas include: (1) improving coordination of data calls; (2) ensuring that data calls follow appropriate contract terms and conditions; (3) establishing an executive-level point of contact to serve as a liaison between NNSA and its M&O contractors to resolve issues with data calls; and (4) streamlining routine or recurring financial data calls."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NNSA is responsible for the management and security of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile as well as for U.S. nonproliferation efforts. To execute its missions, NNSA relies on seven M&O contractors to manage and operate its eight sites-collectively known as the nuclear security enterprise. However, NNSA's relationship with its contractors has been a source of concern for years, including NNSA's use of data calls. Specifically, two statutorily required reports issued by an advisory panel in 2014 and a commission in 2015 described an eroding and dysfunctional relationship between DOE and its contractors and identified data calls as onerous, fueling inefficiencies, and generating little added value to NNSA's oversight of its contractors.
GAO was asked to review NNSA's management of data calls to M&O contractors in the nuclear security enterprise subsequent to the issuance of the statutorily required reports. This report examines (1) what is known about data calls to NNSA's M&O contractors, and the extent to which, if any, contractors currently identify data calls as burdensome; and (2) what actions NNSA has taken since 2015 to manage data calls to M&O contractors.
GAO reviewed available documentation from M&O contractors on the data calls they receive and NNSA and DOE documentation related to efforts intended to help manage the agency's data call process. GAO conducted semi-structured interviews with division-leader representatives from the seven M&O contractors regarding how they define, track, and process data calls and confirmed their statements with site director-level management. GAO also interviewed agency officials at NNSA headquarters and gained the perspectives of officials at each of NNSA's field offices on NNSA's process for managing data calls."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-286R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Older Workers
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on phased retirement in other countries. The report (GAO-19-16) is titled "Older Workers: Other Countries' Experiences with Phased Retirement".The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, on Feb. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO's review of studies and interviews with employment and retirement experts identified 17 countries with aging populations and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on phased retirement in other countries. The report (GAO-19-16) is titled "Older Workers: Other Countries' Experiences with Phased Retirement". The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, on Feb. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO's review of studies and interviews with employment and retirement experts identified 17 countries with aging populations andnational pension systems similar to the Social Security program in the United States. These countries also have arrangements that allow workers to reduce their working hours as they transition into retirement, referred to as "phased retirement." Phased retirement arrangements encourage older workers who might otherwise retire immediately to continue working, which could help alleviate pressures on national pension systems as well as address labor shortages of skilled workers. The17 countries had established phased retirement programs in different ways: at the national level via broad policy that sets a framework for employers; at the industry or sector level; or by single employers, often through the collective bargaining process.
GAO's four case study countries--Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (UK)--were described as employing various strategies at the national level to encourage phased retirement, and specific programs differed with respect to design specifics and sources of supplemental income for participants. Canada and the U.K. were described as having national policies that make it easier for workers to reduce their hours and receive a portion of their pension benefits from employer-sponsored pension plans while continuing to accrue pension benefits in the same plan. Experts described two national programs available to employers and workers in Germany, with one program using tax preferences. Experts also said Sweden implemented a policy in 2010 that allows partial retirement and access to partial pension benefits to encourage workers to stay in the labor force longer.
Even with unique considerations in the United States, other countries' experiences with phased retirement could inform U.S. efforts. Some employer-specific conditions, such as employers offering employee-directed retirement plans and not being covered by collective bargaining are more common in the United States, but the case study countries included examples of designs for phased retirement programs in such settings. Certain programs allow access to employer-sponsored or national pension benefits while working part-time. For example, experts said the U.K. allows workers to draw a portion of their account based pension tax-free, and one U.K. employer GAO spoke to also allows concurrent contributions to those plans. In addition, experts said that certain program design elements help determine the success of some programs. Such elements could inform the United States experience. For instance, U.S. employers told us that while offering phased retirement to specific groups of workers may be challenging because of employment discrimination laws, a union representative in Germany noted that they reached an agreement where employers may set restrictions or caps on participation, such as 3 percent of the workforce, to manage the number of workers in the program. Employers in the U.S. could explore whether using a similar approach, taking into consideration any legal concerns or other practical challenges, could help them to control the number of workers participating in phased retirement programs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In response to an aging workforce, countries around the world have developed policies to encourage older workers to work longer to improve the financial sustainability of national pension systems and address shortages of skilled workers. Phased retirement is one option that can be used to encourage older workers to stay in the workforce. GAO was asked to look at phased retirement programs in the United States and other countries. In June 2017, GAO issued a report (GAO-17-536) that looked at phased retirement in the United States, where formal phased retirement programs are as yet uncommon. This report looks at phased retirement in other countries.
Specifically, GAO examined (1) the extent to which phased retirement exists in other countries with aging populations, (2) the key aspects of phased retirement programs in selected countries, and (3) the experiences of other countries in providing phased retirement and how their experiences can inform policies in the United States.
GAO analyzed relevant data, reviewed academic research, and conducted interviews to identify countries with phased retirement, and selected four countries with national policies permitting phased retirement programs with broad coverage for case studies. GAO also conducted interviews with government officials, unions, employer associations, and other experts."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making recommendations in this report".
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-16?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's FY 2018 Financial Statements
WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the audit of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's fiscal 2018 financial statements. The report (GAO-19-413R) is titled "Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the Audit of the Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2018".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 3 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the audit of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's fiscal 2018 financial statements. The report (GAO-19-413R) is titled "Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the Audit of the Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2018". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on March 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Based on the limited procedures GAO performed in reviewing the independent public accounting firm's (IPA) financial audit of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) fiscal year 2018 financial statements, GAO did not identify any significant issues related to the financial statement audit that it believes require attention. Had GAO performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to its attention that it would have reported. The IPA provided an unmodified audit opinion on PCORI's fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements. Specifically, the IPA found that PCORI's financial statements were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Further, for fiscal year 2018, the IPA did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that it considered to be material weaknesses or any reportable noncompliance with the selected provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements it tested. PCORI did not disagree with the IPA report's conclusions.
GAO provided a draft of its report to PCORI and the IPA for review and comment. PCORI's Director of Finance and an IPA Partner responded that they had no questions or comments on our report."
Why GAO Did This Study: "This report presents the results of GAO's review of PCORI's fiscal year 2018 financial statement audit. PCORI was created in 2010 by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as a federally funded, nonprofit corporation that is neither an agency nor establishment of the United States government. According to PPACA, PCORI's purpose is to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policymakers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis.
PPACA requires PCORI to obtain an annual financial statement audit from a private entity with expertise in conducting financial audits. PPACA also requires the Comptroller General of the United States to annually review the audit of PCORI's financial statements and report the results to the Congress. GAO's objective was to review the financial audit of PCORI's fiscal year 2018 financial statements. To satisfy this objective, GAO performed the following procedures: (1) read and considered various documents relating to the IPA's independence, objectivity, and qualifications; (2) analyzed key IPA audit documentation; (3) read PCORI's fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements, the IPA's audit report on the financial statements, and the IPA's report on internal control over financial reporting and compliance; and (4) met with IPA representatives and PCORI management officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-413R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Architect of Capitol
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Architect of the Capitol's Construction Division operations. The report (GAO-19-343) is titled "Architect of the Capitol: A Formalized Process Could Improve Management of the Construction Division's Workforce and Workload".The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Architect of the Capitol's Construction Division operations. The report (GAO-19-343) is titled "Architect of the Capitol: A Formalized Process Could Improve Management of the Construction Division's Workforce and Workload". The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summariesassociated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) Construction Division (hereafter the Division) is designed to serve as a flexible option that the 10 operational jurisdictions that comprise AOC can use to meet their facility needs. In their efforts to manage the buildings and grounds of the U.S. Capitol complex, AOC's jurisdictions have used the Division for projects that vary widely in cost, complexity, and duration (see figure). For example, over the last 5 fiscal years, the jurisdictions have used the Division for projects ranging in cost from about $1,000 to about $10 million and in scope from hazardous material testing to multiyear lighting-system upgrades.
Jurisdiction officials cited the Division's flexibility in adjusting to scope and other changes to keep a project on schedule as one of the reasons they may decide to use the Division instead of an outside contractor. While jurisdiction officials said they were generally satisfied with the Division's services, officials from two jurisdictions suggested that the Division consider changing how it operates--for example, by transferring some positions to its parent organization in an effort to lower what it charges the jurisdictions. According to AOC officials, making changes such as this one to the Division's operations could have varying effects, such as increasing how much funding AOC would require from other sources beyond the jurisdictions.
(Figure Omitted)
The Division has taken steps to strategically manage its workforce to help ensure that it has the right number and composition of staff to meet the jurisdictions' needs but has not formalized the process it uses for collecting information on the jurisdictions' construction priorities each month. Because the Division's workload is driven by projects the jurisdictions hire it to perform, such things as changes in projects' priorities and work to be performed make determining future workforce needs challenging.
The Division's approach to managing its workforce generally aligns with practices that GAO has previously identified that help agencies strategically manage their human capital. This approach includes having strategies to address gaps if the size and composition of an agency's workforce are not aligned with its workload requirements. However, because the Division has not formalized the process it uses to collect information each month on the jurisdictions' construction priorities it may miss opportunities to obtain information that is critical to making informed decisions. The Division also cannot provide reasonable assurance to AOC management and Congress that it is taking the steps necessary to manage its workload and that it is basing its workforce projections on the most current information available."
Why GAO Did This Study: "AOC is organized into 10 jurisdictions that operate and maintain the buildings and grounds of the U.S. Capitol complex. For projects such as renovations and repairs, the jurisdictions can use their own employees, a contractor, or AOC's Construction Division, which is staffed with trade workers such as electricians and plumbers. Most of the Division's staff are employed on a temporary basis and paid with funds the Division receives from the jurisdictions for projects it executes on their behalf. In March 2017, AOC laid off 30 of the Division's approximately 190 temporary employees, citing a lack of work from the jurisdictions.
GAO was asked to review the Division's operations. This report examines the jurisdictions' use of the Division and the Division's management of its workforce, among other issues. GAO analyzed information on projects the Division completed during fiscal years 2014 through 2018, reviewed AOC policies, visited the sites of six projects that are illustrative of the work the Division performs for the jurisdictions, and interviewed AOC staff, including officials from AOC's 10 jurisdictions and five of the employees AOC laid off in 2017."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that AOC formalize the process the Division uses for collecting information on the jurisdictions' construction priorities each month, such as through developing written procedures. AOC concurred with GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-343?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Data Breaches
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to consumers' options to address risks of harm from data breaches. The report (GAO-19-230) is titled "Data Breaches: Range of Consumer Risks Highlights Limitations of Identity Theft Services".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commerce ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to consumers' options to address risks of harm from data breaches. The report (GAO-19-230) is titled "Data Breaches: Range of Consumer Risks Highlights Limitations of Identity Theft Services". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commercesubcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "No one solution can address the range of potential risks from a data breach, according to interviews with academic, consumer, government, and industry experts and documentation GAO reviewed. Perpetrators of fraud can use stolen personal information--such as account numbers, passwords, or Social Security numbers--to take out loans or seek medical care under someone else's name, or make unauthorized purchases on credit cards, among other crimes. Foreign state-based actors can use personal information to support espionage or other nefarious uses.
Public and private entities that experience a breach sometimes provide complimentary commercial identity theft services to affected individuals to help monitor their credit accounts or restore their identities in cases of identity theft, among other features. Consumers also may purchase the services. As of November 30, 2018, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had obligated about $421 million for a suite of credit and identity monitoring, insurance, and identity restoration services to offer to the approximately 22 million individuals affected by its 2015 data breaches. As of September 30, 2018, about 3 million had used the services and approximately 61 individuals had received payouts from insurance claims, for an average of $1,800 per claim. OPM re-competed and awarded a contract to the previously contracted company in December 2018.
GAO's review did not identify any studies that analyzed whether consumers who sign up for or purchase identity theft services were less subject to identity theft or detected financial or other fraud more or less quickly than those who monitored their own accounts for free. A few experts said consumers could sign up for such services if offered for free. Credit monitoring may be convenient for consumers and personalized restoration services may help identity theft victims recover their identities, but such services do not prevent fraud from happening in the first place. The services also do not prevent or directly address risks of nonfinancial harm such as medical identity theft.
Consumer, government, and industry experts highlighted other free options, including a credit freeze, which prevents one type of fraud. A freeze restricts businesses from accessing a person's credit report--and can prevent the illicit opening of a new account or loan in the person's name. A provision of federal law that took effect in September 2018 made it free for consumers to place or lift credit freezes quickly at the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion). Consumers also can regularly monitor their accounts and review their credit reports for free every 12 months. In addition, they can take advantage of free federal assistance such as the guidance on the Federal Trade Commission's IdentityTheft.gov website.
Finally, large amounts of personal information are outside of consumers' control and bad actors can use stolen information for years after a breach. Therefore, experts noted that data security at entities that hold such information--and efforts to make stolen information less useful for identity thieves, through use of new identity verification technologies, for example--are important ways to mitigate risks of harm for consumers."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Recent large-scale data breaches of public and private entities have put hundreds of millions of people at risk of identity theft or other harm. GAO was asked to review issues related to consumers' options to address risks of harm from data breaches. This report, among other things, examines information and expert views on the effectiveness of consumer options to address data breach risks. GAO analyzed available data on options, collected and analyzed related documentation, conducted a literature review of studies, and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 35 experts (from academia, government entities, consumer and industry organizations) and identity theft service providers to reflect a range of views.
What GAO Recommends
GAO reiterates a matter for congressional consideration and a recommendation from its 2017 report on identity theft services (GAO-17-254). In that report, GAO found that legislation requiring federal agencies that experience data breaches, including OPM, to offer certain levels of identity theft insurance coverage to affected individuals requires coverage levels that are likely unnecessary. Therefore, Congress should consider permitting agencies to determine the appropriate coverage level for such insurance. GAO also recommended the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) update its guidance for agency responses to data breaches, after analyzing the effectiveness of identity theft services relative to lower-cost alternatives. OMB did not agree or disagree and had not taken action as of early March 2019."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-230?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Health Care
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's graduate medical education oversight process. The report (GAO-19-338) is titled "Defense Health Care: DOD's Proposed Plan for Oversight of Graduate Medical Education Programs".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 28. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's graduate medical education oversight process. The report (GAO-19-338) is titled "Defense Health Care: DOD's Proposed Plan for Oversight of Graduate Medical Education Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 28. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017) directed the Secretary of Defense to establish and implement a process to oversee military graduate medical education (GME). The goal was to ensure GME programs fully supported operational medical force readiness, and the NDAA 2017 included several requirements for the process. In July 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) provided a report to Congress outlining its proposed GME oversight process, and GAO found that the proposed process addressed each of the NDAA 2017 requirements. (See table.) The process formalized practices that were already in place within the military services, while also establishing two new oversight entities--the Oversight Advisory Council and the Integration Advisory Board. These entities were chartered in late 2018 and report to the director of DOD's Defense Health Agency.
(Table omitted)
At the time of GAO's review, DOD had not developed plans for implementing the GME oversight process. DOD officials stated that they began their planning efforts in late January 2019 but were unsure how long this process would take."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD's health care system prepares medical personnel for wartime or humanitarian missions while providing health care to servicemembers and other eligible beneficiaries. It is responsible for ensuring that military servicemembers are physically and mentally fit to perform their missions and that it has an adequate number of medical personnel with the requisite skills and training to meet DOD's mission needs (operational medical force readiness). DOD uses GME programs to recruit and retain military physicians by providing specialized medical training through physician residencies and fellowships in exchange for active duty service obligations.
The NDAA 2017 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's GME oversight process, as detailed in DOD's July 2018 report to Congress. GAO assessed to what extent DOD's proposed oversight process, as outlined in its report to Congress, addressed each of the NDAA 2017 requirements. GAO compared DOD's process with the NDAA 2017 requirements; reviewed relevant documentation, such as minutes from planning meetings and charters for two new oversight entities; and interviewed DOD officials.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD did not fully agree with GAO's finding that the department had not developed plans to implement its new GME oversight process, citing as a basis certain preliminary steps it had taken. Based on the preliminary nature of these steps and other reasons explained in the report, GAO stands by its finding."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-338?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Employment, Training Programs
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal employment and training programs. The report (GAO-19-200) is titled "Employment and Training Programs: Department of Labor Should Assess Efforts to Coordinate Services Across Programs".The report was sent to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, chairman, and Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The number of federal employment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal employment and training programs. The report (GAO-19-200) is titled "Employment and Training Programs: Department of Labor Should Assess Efforts to Coordinate Services Across Programs". The report was sent to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, chairman, and Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The number of federal employmentand 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. 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.
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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-200?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Fiscal Exposures
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on cost- and exposure-related information on federal activities that transfer risk or losses to the government. The report (GAO-19-353) is titled "Fiscal Exposures: Federal Insurance and Other Activities That Transfer Risk or Losses to the Government".The report was sent to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on cost- and exposure-related information on federal activities that transfer risk or losses to the government. The report (GAO-19-353) is titled "Fiscal Exposures: Federal Insurance and Other Activities That Transfer Risk or Losses to the Government". The report was sent to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "Through analysis of sources containing government-wide information on federal activities, GAO identified 148 federal insurance and other activities that transfer risk or losses from adverse events to the government (see fig.). Unlike private insurance, the activities do not necessarily have a contract or charge premiums or fees in exchange for assuming risk. Even when premiums or fees exist they may not cover all costs, as federal expenditures can be driven by policy goals or agency missions rather than the aim of fiscal solvency. GAO generally was able to provide financial or budget information for the activities.
(Figure Omitted)
The government's primarily cash-based budget generally does not record the full cost of commitments incurred until corresponding payments are made in the future. Therefore, the budget may not accurately reflect federal costs or the likely claim on federal resources for such activities. For some claims, such as pension and life insurance, the federal commitment occurs years before payments are reflected in the budget. Additionally, payments the government may be expected to make based on policies or past practices (but is not legally required to make) may not be evident in the budget. For example, the Commercial Space Launch Insurance Program created a potential liability to the government of up to $3.1 billion per licensed space launch in 2017 but never has been included in the budget. GAO previously recommended (GAO-08-206, and reiterated in GAO-14-28) that Congress consider expanding the use of accrual-based information in the budget documents submitted to Congress. However, this recommendation has not been implemented. Accrual measurement would provide enhanced control over future spending by recognizing long-term costs when decisions are made."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government conducts many activities that protect parties from the effects of adverse events--for instance, by providing flood insurance, guaranteeing mortgage loans, or making payments to beneficiaries of deceased military personnel. Identifying these activities and understanding the fiscal exposures they create can be a challenge, making it difficult for Congress to oversee them through the budget and appropriation processes.
GAO was asked to update information on federal insurance activities it created in 2005 (GAO-05-265R) and identify opportunities for improving budgeting for such activities. This report (1) identifies and provides cost- and exposure-related information on federal activities that transfer risk or losses to the government, and (2) illustrates challenges GAO identified in past reports with measuring and reporting fiscal exposures in budget documents. GAO primarily reviewed government-wide financial and budget data, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and the U.S. Code. GAO also drew on previous work, conducted interviews with the Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Treasury, and other agencies, and reviewed agency financial and budget documents."
What GAO Recommends: "This analysis provides additional support for GAO's 2007 recommendation that Congress consider improving recognition of fiscal exposures in budget documents such as by expanding use of information on expected future spending arising from present-day commitments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-353?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Medicare, Medicaid
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and factors that contribute to improper payments due to insufficient documentation. The report (GAO-19-277) is titled "Medicare and Medicaid: CMS Should Assess Documentation Necessary to Identify Improper Payments".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and factors that contribute to improper payments due to insufficient documentation. The report (GAO-19-277) is titled "Medicare and Medicaid: CMS Should Assess Documentation Necessary to Identify Improper Payments". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and MeansCommittee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Health, and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses estimates of improper payments to help identify the causes and extent of Medicare and Medicaid program risks and develop strategies to protect the integrity of the programs. CMS estimates Medicare and Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) improper payments, in part, by conducting medical reviews--reviews of provider-submitted medical record documentation to determine whether the services were medically necessary and complied with coverage policies. Payments for services not sufficiently documented are considered improper payments. In recent years, CMS estimated substantially more improper payments in Medicare, relative to Medicaid, primarily due to insufficient documentation (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
For certain services, Medicare generally has more extensive documentation requirements than Medicaid. For example, Medicare requires additional documentation for services that involve physician referrals, while Medicaid requirements vary by state and may rely on other mechanisms--such as requiring approval before services are provided--to ensure compliance with coverage policies. Although Medicare and Medicaid pay for similar services, the same documentation for the same service can be sufficient in one program but not the other. The substantial variation in the programs' improper payments raises questions about how well the programs' documentation requirements help identify causes of program risks. As a result, CMS may not have the information it needs to effectively address program risks and direct program integrity efforts.
CMS's Medicaid medical reviews may not provide the robust state-specific information needed to identify causes of improper payments and address program risks. In fiscal year 2017, CMS medical reviews identified fewer than 10 improper payments in more than half of all states. CMS directs states to develop corrective actions specific to each identified improper payment. However, because individual improper payments may not be representative of the causes of improper payments in a state, the resulting corrective actions may not effectively address program risks and may misdirect state program integrity efforts. Augmenting medical reviews with other sources of information, such as state auditor findings, is one option to better ensure that corrective actions address program risks."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In fiscal year 2017, Medicare FFS had an estimated $23.2 billion in improper payments due to insufficient documentation, while Medicaid FFS had $4.3 billion--accounting for most of the programs' estimated FFS medical review improper payments. Medicare FFS coverage policies are generally national, and the program directly pays providers, while Medicaid provides states flexibility to design coverage policies, and the federal government and states share in program financing.
Among other things, GAO examined: (1) Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and factors that contribute to improper payments due to insufficient documentation; and (2) the extent to which Medicaid reviews provide states with actionable information. GAO reviewed Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements and improper payment data for fiscal years 2005 through 2017, and interviewed officials from CMS, CMS contractors, and six state Medicaid programs. GAO selected the states based on, among other criteria, variation in estimated state improper payment rates, and FFS spending and enrollment."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to CMS, including that CMS assess and ensure the effectiveness of Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements, and that CMS take steps to ensure Medicaid's medical reviews effectively address causes of improper payments and result in appropriate corrective actions. CMS concurred with three recommendations, but did not concur with the recommendation on Medicaid medical reviews. GAO maintains that this recommendation is valid as discussed in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-277?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on National Science Foundation Large Facilities Projects
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Science Foundation's large facilities projects. The report (GAO-19-227) is titled "National Science Foundation: Cost and Schedule Performance of Large Facilities Construction Projects and Opportunities to Improve Project Management".The report was sent to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, chairman, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Robert Aderholt, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Science Foundation's large facilities projects. The report (GAO-19-227) is titled "National Science Foundation: Cost and Schedule Performance of Large Facilities Construction Projects and Opportunities to Improve Project Management". The report was sent to Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, chairman, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Robert Aderholt,R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, on March 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The National Science Foundation (NSF) took some steps to help ensure that its own oversight staff for large facilities projects and the agency's award recipients--such as universities or companies that design, construct, and operate the projects on a day-to-day basis--have project management expertise, but it had not taken certain additional steps. For example, as called for by leading practices, in 2018 NSF identified competencies needed by its oversight staff to ensure their project management expertise. In contrast, the agency had not yet assessed potential gaps in how well its staff met the competencies or established a time frame for doing so. Having such an assessment would help NSF target workforce strategies to fill any gaps identified. To assess the expertise of recipients, NSF relies on the judgment of external panels of experts it periodically convenes to review large facilities projects during design and construction. However, NSF had not established criteria for project management expertise needed by recipients, potentially increasing the risk of awarding funds to recipients that may not be well-qualified to manage large construction projects.
In 2017 NSF formalized its process to identify and share lessons learned on large facilities projects. This process was consistent with key practices from GAO's prior work on lessons learned. However, the agency had not established a requirement for all recipients to provide potential lessons learned. Ensuring, through a requirement or other means, that all recipients provide lessons learned could help NSF identify lessons that would benefit other projects.
NSF completed construction of the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory in 2018, continued construction on four other large facilities projects, and advanced the design of two; these projects had varying cost and schedule performance. Since GAO's June 2018 report, NSF delayed completion of the National Ecological Observatory Network by 3 months, for a total delay of 2.6 years; other projects under construction had no cost or schedule increases."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NSF awards cooperative agreements and contracts to external funding recipients to fund construction of science and engineering research infrastructure, such as telescopes. These large facilities projects typically have construction costs of at least $70 million and may take many years to design and construct. Having expertise in project management can help keep complex projects on schedule and on budget, and identifying lessons learned from projects can help improve project oversight and performance.
Senate Report 114-239 and House Report 114-605 included provisions for GAO to review NSF's large facilities projects. This report examines, among other things, (1) steps NSF has taken to ensure the project management expertise of NSF staff and award recipients, (2) the extent to which NSF identifies and shares lessons learned on large facilities projects, and (3) the cost and schedule performance of NSF's ongoing large facilities projects. GAO analyzed NSF policies and documents for the seven projects in design or construction, interviewed agency officials, and compared NSF's processes to leading practices identified in prior GAO work."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to NSF including that NSF assess any gaps in its oversight staff's project management expertise, establish criteria for recipients' project management expertise, and ensure that recipients provide any lessons learned on projects to NSF. NSF generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."
GAO Issues Report on U.S. Government Financial Audit
WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on financial statements of the U.S. government. The report (GAO-19-294R) is titled "Financial Audit: Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government".The report was sent to the president, the president of the Senate, and the speaker of the House, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "To operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, Congress, the administration, and federal managers must have ready access to reliable and complete ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on financial statements of the U.S. government. The report (GAO-19-294R) is titled "Financial Audit: Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government". The report was sent to the president, the president of the Senate, and the speaker of the House, on March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "To operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, Congress, the administration, and federal managers must have ready access to reliable and completefinancial and performance information--both for individual federal entities and for the federal government as a whole. GAO's report on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2017 underscores that much work remains to improve federal financial management.
GAO found the following:
- Certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations resulted in conditions that prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2018, and 2017. About 31 percent of the federal government's reported total assets as of September 30, 2018, and approximately 17 percent of the federal government's reported net cost for fiscal year 2018 relate to significant federal entities that received disclaimers of opinion on their fiscal year 2018 financial statements or whose fiscal year 2018 financial information was unaudited.
- Significant uncertainties, primarily related to the achievement of projected reductions in Medicare cost growth, prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the sustainability financial statements, which consist of the 2018 and 2017 Statements of Long-Term Fiscal Projections; the 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 Statements of Social Insurance; and the 2018 and 2017 Statements of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts. About $37.7 trillion, or 70 percent, of the reported total present value of future expenditures in excess of future revenue presented in the 2018 Statement of Social Insurance relates to Medicare programs reported in the Department of Health and Human Services' 2018 Statement of Social Insurance, which received a disclaimer of opinion. A material weakness in internal control also prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the 2018 and 2017 Statements of Long-Term Fiscal Projections.
- Material weaknesses resulted in ineffective internal control over financial reporting for fiscal year 2018.
- Material weaknesses and other scope limitations, discussed above, limited tests of compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements for fiscal year 2018.
Three major impediments have continued to prevent GAO from rendering an opinion on the federal government's accrual-based consolidated financial statements over this period: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that have prevented its financial statements from being auditable, (2) the federal government's inability to adequately account for intragovernmental activity and balances between federal entities, and (3) the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements. Efforts are under way to resolve these issues, but strong and sustained commitment by DOD and other federal entities, as well as continued leadership by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are necessary to implement needed improvements.
Material weaknesses underlying these three major impediments have continued to (1) hamper the federal government's ability to reliably report a significant portion of its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information; (2) affect the federal government's ability to reliably measure the full cost, as well as the financial and nonfinancial performance, of certain programs and activities; (3) impair the federal government's ability to adequately safeguard significant assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) hinder the federal government from having reliable, useful, and timely financial information to operate effectively and efficiently.
In addition to the three major impediments, GAO identified three other material weaknesses. These are the federal government's inability to (1) determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce them, (2) identify and resolve information security control deficiencies and manage information security risks on an ongoing basis, and (3) effectively implement internal controls over estimating the cost of credit programs and determining the value of loans receivable and loan guarantee liabilities.
The comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the Statement of Long-Term Fiscal Projections and related information show that absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable long-term fiscal path in which debt is projected to grow faster than gross domestic product. GAO plans to issue its annual report on the fiscal health of the federal government."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of OMB, is required to annually submit audited financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and Congress. GAO is required to audit these statements. The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 has required such reporting, covering the executive branch of government, beginning with financial statements prepared for fiscal year 1997. The consolidated financial statements include the legislative and judicial branches."
What GAO Recommends: "Based on prior financial statement audits, GAO made numerous recommendations to Treasury and OMB to address internal control deficiencies. GAO will continue to monitor and will report separately on Treasury's and OMB's progress in implementing prior recommendations that remain open. Consistent with past practice, GAO will also be separately reporting on internal control deficiencies in processes used to prepare the consolidated financial statements and providing Treasury and OMB, as appropriate, recommendations for corrective actions to address them.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Treasury and OMB officials expressed their continuing commitment to addressing the problems this report outlines."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-294R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Acquisitions
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on factors affecting the Department of Defense's personnel needs for its acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-209) is titled "Defense Acquisitions: Information on Workforce, Organizational Structure, and Budgeting for Selected Programs".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on March 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The workforce size, composition, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on factors affecting the Department of Defense's personnel needs for its acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-209) is titled "Defense Acquisitions: Information on Workforce, Organizational Structure, and Budgeting for Selected Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on March 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The workforce size, composition,and mix, as well as the organizational structure of the 11 Department of Defense (DOD) major defense acquisition programs GAO reviewed were influenced by several interrelated factors. These factors include the government's role in developing and integrating key technologies, the availability of government personnel to provide the skills needed, and whether the program was managed as part of a portfolio of related programs or as a stand-alone program. For example, programs that assumed more responsibility for developing and integrating key technologies generally had a larger workforce, which was primarily composed of engineering and technical personnel. Program officials GAO met with stated that they generally prefer to use government personnel, but use contractor support when the number of government personnel allocated to the program is not sufficient to meet their needs, the technical skills are not available or are limited within the government, or to fulfill short-term tasks that are too brief to justify hiring government personnel. GAO also found that DOD structured the 11 programs to allow them to leverage available personnel with the necessary skills. Two programs were structured as standalone programs because they were new, high priority, and complex. The other nine programs were managed as a part of a portfolio of related programs. For example, the Air Force's F-15 program office manages a number of programs that add capabilities to the existing system.
DOD's Financial Management Regulation, which governs the formulation and presentation of DOD's budget request, gives DOD flexibility in how it submits program personnel costs. Consequently, the personnel costs for the 11 programs GAO reviewed were not separately and distinctly identified from other costs. For example, costs for civilian and military personnel are often centrally funded through appropriations categories that support many DOD activities and do not provide information on specific program personnel costs. GAO also found that costs for contractor support are often combined with other costs in individual program budget exhibits."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2018, DOD estimated that its 82 major defense acquisition programs would cost over $1.69 trillion in total to acquire. DOD relies on program offices--composed of civilian, military and contractor support personnel--to manage and oversee these technically complex programs.
GAO was asked to review factors affecting DOD's personnel needs for its acquisition programs and how DOD budgets for the costs associated with these personnel.
This report describes (1) factors affecting the workforce size, composition, and mix of contractor and government personnel, as well as organizational structure for selected programs; and (2) how personnel costs associated with those selected programs are included in DOD's budget justification documents.
GAO reviewed DOD acquisition, workforce, and financial management policies and regulations and identified a non-generalizable sample of 11 major defense acquisition programs, including programs from each military department that were recently approved to enter into system development. GAO requested information from each of these programs to identify the number and type of personnel supporting the program, reviewed program documentation, and interviewed program officials. GAO also reviewed DOD's budget justification documents for fiscal years 2018 and 2019."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-209?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Budget
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how amounts authorized and appropriated for operation and maintenance overseas contingency operations activities were obligated by the Department of Defense for fiscal 2018. The report (GAO-19-333R) is titled "Defense Budget: Fiscal Year 2018 Obligations of Operation and Maintenance Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how amounts authorized and appropriated for operation and maintenance overseas contingency operations activities were obligated by the Department of Defense for fiscal 2018. The report (GAO-19-333R) is titled "Defense Budget: Fiscal Year 2018 Obligations of Operation and Maintenance Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman,and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In fiscal year 2018, Congress authorized $48.6 billion and appropriated $50.7 billion for operation and maintenance (O&M) overseas contingency operations (OCO), and the Department of Defense (DOD) reported obligating $46.5 billion. DOD reported obligating these funds for war-related activities, including security forces training missions, in-theater base support operations (dining facilities, laundry, security, and housing), ship operations, flying hours, equipment maintenance and repair, and transportation. The amounts reported as obligated in some sub-activity groups exceed the congressionally directed amounts for those same groups as a result of transfers and reprogrammings."
Why GAO Did This Study: "According to DOD, since September 2001, Congress has appropriated approximately $1.8 trillion to DOD for OCO, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to report on how funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2018 for OCO were obligated. In fiscal year 2018, O&M OCO amounts comprised approximately 76 percent of DOD's OCO appropriations total of $66.8 billion. This report describes how amounts authorized and appropriated for O&M OCO activities were obligated by DOD for fiscal year 2018.
To determine how DOD obligated the amounts authorized and appropriated for O&M OCO activities in fiscal year 2018, GAO first compared authorized and appropriated O&M OCO amounts by sub-activity group. GAO then analyzed obligation data provided by DOD related to the same sub-activity groups."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-333R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Disaster Recovery
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the 2017 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery. The report (GAO-19-232) is titled "Disaster Recovery: Better Monitoring of Block Grant Funds Is Needed".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the 2017 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery. The report (GAO-19-232) is titled "Disaster Recovery: Better Monitoring of Block Grant Funds Is Needed". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommitteeon Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, on March 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "As of September 2018, the four states and territories that received the most 2017 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds had signed grant agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Before signing the agreements, HUD certified the grantees' financial processes and procedures. It also approved the grantees' assessments of their capacity to carry out the recovery and of unmet needs (losses not met with insurance or other forms of assistance). Before funding begins to reach disaster victims, the grantees need to take additional steps, such as finalizing plans for individual activities. As of January 2019, Texas had drawn down about $18 million (of $5 billion) for administration and planning only, and Florida had drawn down about $1 million (of $616 million) for administration, planning, and housing activities. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands had not drawn down any of the $1.5 billion and $243 million, respectively, they had been allocated.
HUD lacks adequate guidance for staff reviewing the quality of grantees' financial processes and procedures and assessments of capacity and unmet needs, and has not completed monitoring or workforce plans. The checklists used to review grantees' financial processes and procedures and assessments ask the reviewer to determine if the grantee included certain information, such as its procurement processes, but not to evaluate the adequacy of that information. In addition, the checklists, which include a series of "yes" or "no" questions, do not include guidance that the HUD reviewer must consider. HUD also does not have a monitoring plan that identifies the risk factors for each grantee and outlines the scope of monitoring. Further, HUD has not developed a workforce plan that identifies the critical skills and competencies HUD needs and includes strategies to address any staffing gaps. Adequate review guidance, a monitoring plan, and strategic workforce planning would improve HUD's ability to oversee CDBG-DR grants.
Without permanent statutory authority and regulations such as those that govern other disaster assistance programs, CDBG-DR appropriations require HUD to customize grant requirements for each disaster in Federal Register notices--a time-consuming process that has delayed the disbursement of funds. In a July 2018 report, the HUD Office of Inspector General found that as of September 2017, HUD used 61 notices to oversee 112 active CDBG-DR grants. Officials from one of the 2017 grantees told us that it was challenging to manage the multiple CDBG-DR grants it has received over the years because of the different rules. CDBG-DR grantees have faced additional challenges such as the need to coordinate the use of CDBG-DR funds with other disaster recovery programs that are initiated at different times and administered by other agencies. HUD officials said that permanently authorizing CDBG-DR would allow HUD to issue permanent regulations for disaster recovery. Permanent statutory authority could help address the challenges grantees face in meeting customized grant requirements for each disaster, such as funding lags, varying requirements, and coordination with multiple programs. The expected increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events underscores the need for a permanent program to address unmet disaster needs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The 2017 hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) caused an estimated $265 billion in damage, primarily in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As of February 2019, Congress had provided over $35 billion to HUD for CDBG-DR grants to help communities recover. Communities may use these funds to address unmet needs for housing, infrastructure, and economic revitalization. GAO was asked to evaluate the federal government's response to the 2017 hurricanes. In this initial review of CDBG-DR, GAO examined, among other things, (1) the status of the 2017 grants, (2) HUD's review of the initial steps grantees have taken and its plans for future monitoring, and (3) challenges HUD and grantees face in administering grants.
GAO reviewed documentation from the four largest 2017 CDBG-DR grantees and HUD. GAO also reviewed prior work on CDBG-DR and interviewed officials from HUD and the four grantees."
What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider permanently authorizing a disaster assistance program that meets unmet needs in a timely manner. GAO also makes five recommendations to HUD, which include developing guidance for HUD staff to use in assessing grantees, developing a monitoring plan, and conducting workforce planning. HUD generally agreed with three recommendations and partially agreed with two, which GAO clarified to address HUD's comments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-232?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Consumer Data Protection
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to federal oversight of consumer reporting agencies. The report (GAO-19-196) is titled "Consumer Data Protection: Actions Needed to Strengthen Oversight of Consumer Reporting Agencies".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to federal oversight of consumer reporting agencies. The report (GAO-19-196) is titled "Consumer Data Protection: Actions Needed to Strengthen Oversight of Consumer Reporting Agencies". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of theHouse Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has settled 34 enforcement actions against various entities related to consumer reporting violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including 17 actions against consumer reporting agencies (CRA). Some of these settlements included civil penalties--fines for wrongdoing that do not require proof of harm--for FCRA violations or violations of consent orders. However, FTC does not have civil penalty authority for violations of requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), which, unlike FCRA, includes a provision directing federal regulators and FTC to establish standards for financial institutions to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security of customer records. To obtain monetary redress for these violations, FTC must identify affected consumers and any monetary harm they may have experienced. However, harm resulting from privacy and security violations can be difficult to measure and can occur years in the future, making it difficult to trace a particular harm to a specific breach. As a result, FTC lacks a practical enforcement tool for imposing civil money penalties that could help to deter companies, including CRAs, from violating data security provisions of GLBA and its implementing regulations.
Since 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has had five public settlements with CRAs. Four of these settlements included alleged violations of FCRA; and three included alleged violations of unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices provisions. CFPB is also responsible for supervising larger CRAs (those with more than $7 million in annual receipts from consumer reporting) but lacks the data needed to ensure identification of all CRAs that meet this threshold. Identifying additional sources of information on these CRAs, such as by requiring them to register with the agency through a rulemaking or leveraging state registration information, could help CFPB ensure that it can comprehensively carry out its supervisory responsibilities. According to CFPB staff, the bureau does not have authority to examine for or enforce the GLBA's safeguards provisions. After the Equifax breach, however, CFPB used its existing supervisory authority to examine the data security of certain CRAs. CFPB's process for prioritizing which CRAs to examine does not routinely include an assessment of companies' data security risks, but doing so could help CFPB better detect such risks and prevent the further exposure or compromise of consumer information.
If a CRA experiences a data breach, affected consumers can take actions to mitigate the risk of identity theft--such as implementing a fraud alert or credit freeze--and can file a complaint with FTC or CFPB. However, consumers are limited in the direct actions they can take against the CRA. Consumers generally cannot exercise choice in the consumer reporting market--such as by choosing which CRAs maintain their information--if they are dissatisfied with a CRA's privacy or security practices. In addition, according to CFPB, consumers cannot remove themselves from the consumer reporting market entirely because they do not have a legal right to delete their records with CRAs. This limited control by consumers, coupled with the large amount and sensitive nature of the information CRAs possess, underscores the importance of appropriate federal oversight of CRAs' data security."
Why GAO Did This Study: "CRAs collect, maintain, and sell to third parties large amounts of sensitive data about consumers, including Social Security numbers and credit card numbers. Businesses and other entities commonly use these data to determine eligibility for credit, employment, and insurance. In 2017, Equifax, one of the largest CRAs, experienced a breach that compromised the records of at least 145.5 million consumers.
GAO was asked to examine issues related to federal oversight of CRAs. Among other things, this report discusses (1) measures FTC has taken to enforce CRA compliance with requirements to protect consumer information, (2) measures CFPB has taken to ensure CRA protection of consumer information, and (3) actions consumers can take after a breach. GAO reviewed relevant laws, documentation related to CRA examinations, and policies and practices of selected CRAs; and interviewed representatives of regulatory agencies, CRAs, consumer and industry groups, and Attorneys General from four states with consumer reporting requirements."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that Congress consider giving FTC civil penalty authority to enforce GLBA's safeguarding provisions. GAO also recommends that CFPB (1) identify additional sources of information on larger CRAs, and (2) reassess its prioritization of examinations to address CRA data security. CFPB neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-196?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DATA Act
WASHINGTON, March 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury's efforts to establish policies and procedures for governing data standards established under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The report (GAO-19-284) is titled "DATA Act: OMB Needs to Formalize Data Governance for Reporting Federal Spending".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury's efforts to establish policies and procedures for governing data standards established under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The report (GAO-19-284) is titled "DATA Act: OMB Needs to Formalize Data Governance for Reporting Federal Spending". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald "Gerry" Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, on March 22. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have established some procedures for governing the data standards established under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), but a formal governance structure has yet to be fully developed. Since enactment, OMB has relied on a shifting array of advisory bodies to obtain input on data standards. As of December 2018, some governance procedures are in place, but others continue to evolve. OMB staff told us that the governing bodies involved in initial implementation efforts had been disbanded, and that the functions previously performed by these advisory bodies over governance of DATA Act data standards would be accomplished within the broader context of the cross-agency priority goals established under the 2018 President's Management Agenda (PMA). However, the documentation of the governance structure established for these goals does not make explicit how it would apply to the data standards established under the DATA Act. Clarifying the connection between this governance structure and the DATA Act could help stakeholders understand how governance of the DATA Act standards is accomplished within the broader context of the PMA.
With regard to one specific data governance function--making changes to existing standards--GAO found that OMB does not have procedures for managing changes to the web page it identifies in guidance as the authoritative source for data definition standards. The DATA Act requires, to the extent reasonable and practicable, that data standards be capable of being continually upgraded. In addition, key practices for data governance state that organizations should document policies and procedures for making decisions about changes to standards. In June 2018, revisions were made to the Primary Place of Performance Address data element without following a documented process. OMB staff described these revisions as minor technical corrections to align the definitions with the technical guidance agencies were already using to report data. However, without documented procedures for revising the definitions, needed changes may not be made in a timely manner, which could lead to inconsistent reporting.
OMB also did not transparently communicate to stakeholders these changes to data definition standards. Along with the corrections to definitions, in June 2018 OMB changed introductory text on the data definitions web page to clarify policy about how agencies should use DATA Act definitions. However, OMB did not publicly announce this clarification or identify on the website that changes had been made. Without transparent communication of changes to data definition standards, stakeholders--including staff at federal agencies required to report data according to these definitions--may miss important information relating to changes in how, when, and by whom data definitions are to be applied.
Although OMB lacks procedures governing changes to DATA Act data definitions, Treasury has established a process for changing related technical guidance in consultation with stakeholders. Treasury's procedures contribute to the objectives of data quality and transparency by helping to ensure that agencies are aware of reporting requirements and users understand how those data are created and reported."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The DATA Act required OMB and Treasury to establish data standards for the reporting of federal government spending and required agencies to report spending data using these standards beginning in May 2017. GAO's prior work examining the quality of the data reported under the act found significant challenges that limit the usefulness of the data for Congress and the public. These data quality challenges underscore the need for OMB and Treasury to make progress on addressing GAO's prior recommendation to establish a set of clear policies and processes for developing and maintaining data standards.
The DATA Act includes a provision for GAO to report on the implementation and use of data standards, and on the quality of the data reported using those standards. This report (1) describes the status of OMB's and Treasury's efforts to establish policies and procedures for governing data standards; and (2) evaluates the extent to which procedures for changing established data standards are consistent with key practices for data governance."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes two recommendations to OMB to (1) document its procedure for changing data definition standards for DATA Act reporting, and (2) ensure that changes made in June 2018 to clarify policy regarding data definitions are identified in an authoritative public source of DATA Act standards and guidance. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, but provided comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-284?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on U.S. Currency
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the potential cost savings to the government from making changes to currency. The report (GAO-19-300) is titled "U.S. Currency: Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO's analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the potential cost savings to the government from making changes to currency. The report (GAO-19-300) is titled "U.S. Currency: Financial Benefit of Switching to a $1 Coin Is Unlikely, but Changing Coin Metal Content Could Result in Cost Savings". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO's analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result ina net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO's estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.
(Figure Omitted)
The U.S. Mint estimates that it could save approximately $250 million over 10 years by suspending penny production and between $2 million and $9 million per year by changing the metal composition of the nickel. It also estimates that it could save about $74 million over 10 years by changing the metal composition of the dime and quarter. However, Federal Reserve officials and some stakeholders expressed concern about temporarily suspending the penny due to the potential for external effects, such as penny shortages. Stakeholders were unconcerned about changes to the nickel as long as the changes would not affect how the coin functioned, for example, in vending machines. Since Congress specifies in law which coins are made and their metal composition, the Mint has proposed legislation to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to change the metal content of coins as long as the weight or machine acceptance of the coins is unaffected. Without such authority, the Mint might not be producing coins as cost-effectively as possible."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The U.S. spent about $1.3 billion in 2017 to produce, process, and circulate coins and paper notes for use in the economy. Since 2006, both the penny and nickel have cost more to make than their face value. Other countries have replaced notes with coins of the same value to reduce costs. Since 1990, GAO had estimated replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would provide a benefit to the federal government.
GAO was asked to examine the potential cost savings to the government from making changes to currency. This report (1) estimates the net benefit to the government, if any, of replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin and selected stakeholders' views on this change; and (2) examines what is known about potential cost savings from suspending penny production and changing the metal composition of the nickel, and selected stakeholders' views on these changes. GAO conducted economic simulations of continued use of $1 notes and replacing notes with $1 coins, examined cost data from the U.S. Mint, and interviewed officials from the Federal Reserve, U.S. Mint and Bureau of Engraving and Printing as well as 10 selected stakeholders representing industries that could potentially be affected by currency changes."
What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider taking steps to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the metal content of circulating coins."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-300?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Real Estate Assessment Center
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Real Estate Assessment Center's policies and processes. The report (GAO-19-254) is titled "Real Estate Assessment Center: HUD Should Improve Physical Inspection Process and Oversight of Inspectors".The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, Rep. David E. Price, D-North Carolina, chairman, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Florida, ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Real Estate Assessment Center's policies and processes. The report (GAO-19-254) is titled "Real Estate Assessment Center: HUD Should Improve Physical Inspection Process and Oversight of Inspectors". The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, Rep. David E. Price, D-North Carolina, chairman, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Florida, rankingmember of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Real Estate Assessment Center's (REAC) standardized process to identify physical deficiencies at HUD multifamily properties (including public housing) has some weaknesses. For example, REAC has not conducted a comprehensive review of its inspection process since 2001, even though new risks to its process have emerged, such as property owners misrepresenting the conditions of their properties. A comprehensive review could help REAC identify risks and ensure it is meeting the goal of producing inspections that are reliable, replicable, and reasonable. In addition, REAC does not track its progress toward meeting its inspection schedule for certain properties, which could hinder HUD's ability to take enforcement actions. Finally, in the wake of concerns that inspections were not always identifying troubled properties, REAC and other HUD units, including the Office of Multifamily Housing, made eight recommendations in January 2017 to enhance the inspection process, but HUD had only approved three of these recommendations and had not implemented any of them as of December 2018.
REAC uses contractors to inspect properties; these contract inspectors are trained and overseen by quality assurance inspectors hired directly by REAC. However, REAC's processes to select, train, and monitor both contract inspectors and quality assurance inspectors have weaknesses.
* Selection. REAC does not verify the qualifications of contract inspector candidates before they are selected to begin training to become certified inspectors. Formal processes to verify qualifications may help REAC identify unqualified candidates before they begin training and avoid expending resources on training these candidates.
* Training. REAC lacks formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program for contract and quality assurance inspectors. In addition, unlike other professional inspection organizations, REAC does not have continuing education requirements. Formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program could help REAC ensure that its program supports the development needs of inspectors. Further, requiring continuing education could help REAC ensure that inspectors are current on any changes in REAC's policies or industry standards.
* Monitoring. REAC has not met management targets for the number and timeliness of its inspection oversight reviews of contract inspectors. For example, REAC has not met its target of conducting three quality assurance reviews of poor-performing contractors per quarter. As a result, if deficiencies are not identified and recorded by contract inspectors, they may not be addressed in a timely manner. In addition, REAC's performance standards for its quality assurance inspectors have not been updated to reflect their broader job duties, such as conducting inspector oversight reviews and coaching and mentoring contract inspectors. Performance standards that are directly linked to these job duties would help ensure that inspectors are assessed on all of their key responsibilities."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Over 2 million low- and moderate-income households live in HUD-assisted (subsidized) or -insured multifamily housing. HUD's REAC uses contractors to inspect the physical condition of these properties to determine that they are decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. The 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Joint Explanatory Statement, included a provision for GAO to review REAC's policies and processes.
This report discusses, among other things, (1) REAC's process for identifying physical deficiencies and (2) REAC's selection, training, and monitoring of contract inspectors and its own quality assurance inspectors. GAO reviewed HUD documents and data related to REAC's physical inspection process, use of contract and quality assurance inspectors, and enforcement processes. GAO also interviewed HUD officials and housing industry stakeholder groups and conducted discussion groups with contract and quality assurance inspectors."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes 14 recommendations to HUD to improve REAC's physical inspection process and its selection, training, and monitoring of contract and quality assurance inspectors, among other things. HUD agreed with 11 recommendations, partially agreed with 2, and neither agreed nor disagreed with 1. GAO maintains that its recommendations should be fully addressed to improve the inspection process."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-254?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Border Security
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on border security metrics. The report (GAO-19-305) is titled "Border Security: DHS Should Improve the Quality of Unlawful Border Entry Information and Other Metric Reporting".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman, and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on border security metrics. The report (GAO-19-305) is titled "Border Security: DHS Should Improve the Quality of Unlawful Border Entry Information and Other Metric Reporting". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman, and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, on March 21. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported on 35 of 43 metrics called for by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (see figure); it generally used quality information, but did not identify some data limitations. GAO found that about half of the 35 metrics generally included elements as called for by the NDAA, while 17 metrics differed, such as in scope or calculation. For example, DHS only provided information on the southwest border for some metrics, such as the estimate of undetected unlawful border crossers for which a methodology for estimating unlawful crossings for the northern border had not yet been completed. DHS components responsible for collecting the metric data generally have processes in place to ensure the reliability of the data and the quality of the information provided. DHS also identified and disclosed limitations for some, but not all, of the data elements and metrics used. For example, GAO found that DHS did not disclose limitations on data related to apprehensions of individuals that were assisted by unmanned aerial systems. By developing and implementing a process to systematically review the reliability of the data and comprehensively identify and communicate limitations, DHS would improve the quality of the information provided.
(Figure Omitted)
DHS used a statistical model to estimate three metrics on unlawful border entries but did not validate some assumptions the model employs through sensitivity analyses and provide measures of statistical uncertainty in accordance with standards for federal agencies. For example, DHS's model assumes that 100 percent of families unlawfully crossing the border will be apprehended, but DHS did not provide information on the extent to which the assumption affected its metrics. DHS also did not provide information on the level of statistical uncertainty for the metrics, such as margins of error. Providing such information would allow Congress and the public to better understand the potential limitations and accuracy of these metrics of unlawful entry. Additionally, DHS's statistical model, which is based on Mexican adults not seeking asylum, represents a small and declining share of those apprehended at the border and DHS is developing a new model to account for current border conditions."
Why GAO Did This Study: "According to DHS, the United States has approximately 6,000 miles of land borders, 95,000 miles of coastline, and more than 300 ports of entry where travelers and cargo are inspected and processed for entry. Securing U.S. border areas is a key part of DHS's mission, and the department's ability to measure its border security efforts is essential for it to manage its responsibilities effectively and efficiently.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 requires DHS to report annually on 43 border security metrics. DHS issued its first report in May 2018. The Act also includes a provision for GAO, within 270 days of receipt and biennially for the following 10 years, to review and report on the data and methodology contained in DHS's report. This report assesses the extent to which DHS: (1) reported metrics as outlined in the NDAA using quality information; and (2) validated assumptions and conveyed statistical uncertainty for unlawful entry metrics, among other objectives. GAO assessed the methodology and data in DHS's report, analyzed DHS's use of statistical models, and interviewed officials from DHS offices and components involved in developing the metrics."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that DHS develop and implement a process to systematically review the reliability of metric data, identify and communicate limitations of the metrics, and include the results of sensitivity analyses and measures of statistical uncertainty for metrics derived from statistical models. DHS concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-305?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DNA Evidence
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the amount of backlogged DNA evidence at state and local government labs. The report (GAO-19-216) is titled "DNA Evidence: DOJ Should Improve Performance Measurement and Properly Design Controls for Nationwide Grant Program".The report was sent to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO found that the reported number of backlogged requests ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the amount of backlogged DNA evidence at state and local government labs. The report (GAO-19-216) is titled "DNA Evidence: DOJ Should Improve Performance Measurement and Properly Design Controls for Nationwide Grant Program". The report was sent to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO found that the reported number of backlogged requestsfor crime scene DNA analysis at state and local government labs has increased by 85 percent from 2011 through 2017, the most recent full year for which grantee data were available (from about 91,000 to about 169,000). This growth has occurred despite labs' collectively processing more requests over time, as shown below.
(Figure Omitted)
GAO found that the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)--the primary grant-making arm of the Department of Justice--has not consistently documented program-wide goals for its DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction grant program (CEBR). For example, it has documented different meanings of "capacity enhancement." Additionally, CEBR performance measures do not fully reflect selected attributes of successful performance measures, such as having measurable targets. These issues hinder OJP's ability to assess program results.
GAO found that OJP has designed controls to achieve its objectives related to compliance with selected requirements for transparency in grantee procurement that apply to both OJP and CEBR grantees. However, OJP has not properly designed all controls related to selected requirements for conflicts of interest and lobbying. While OJP has designed a control to review confidential financial disclosure reports submitted by OJP employees who administer CEBR grants, OJP does not have the required documentation designating which officials are authorized to certify these reports. Similarly, OJP has designed controls to obtain required lobbying certification and disclosure forms from grantees, but OJP has not taken steps to ensure that grantees collect and forward to OJP, as appropriate, these forms from subgrantees and contractors, as required."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Many state and local government crime labs continue to have backlogs of requests for crime scene DNA analysis, which may include sexual assault kits, despite DOJ awarding nearly $1 billion since 2004 through the CEBR grant program to enhance lab capacity and reduce backlogs. Additionally, questions have been raised about potential improper connections among those who profit from CEBR grants--such as private labs and DNA equipment vendors--and those who advocate for CEBR funding.
This report examines, among other things, (1) what is known about the amount of backlogged DNA evidence at state and local government labs; (2) the extent to which OJP measures CEBR grant performance; and (3) the extent to which OJP has designed controls to identify conflicts of interest related to CEBR grants. GAO reviewed CEBR grantee data on DNA evidence backlogs from 2011-2017 (the most recent years of comparable data). GAO reviewed documentation on CEBR performance and controls related to conflicts of interest, transparency in grantee procurement, and lobbying. GAO also reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed officials from DOJ."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations. OJP should (1) consistently document CEBR goals, (2) revise CEBR performance measures, (3) document its designation of confidential financial disclosure certifiers, and (4) clarify guidance for lobbying requirements for CEBR grantees. DOJ concurred with all four recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-216?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Homeland Security
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security's research and development efforts. The report (GAO-19-210) is titled "Homeland Security: Research & Development Coordination Has Improved, but Additional Actions Needed to Track and Evaluate Projects".The report was sent to Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pennsylvania, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) obligated more than $10 billion for research and development (R&D) from fiscal years 2010 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security's research and development efforts. The report (GAO-19-210) is titled "Homeland Security: Research & Development Coordination Has Improved, but Additional Actions Needed to Track and Evaluate Projects". The report was sent to Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pennsylvania, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) obligated more than $10 billion for research and development (R&D) from fiscal years 2010through 2017. Seven DHS components have budget authority to conduct R&D, and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) obligated nearly 80 percent of all DHS R&D funds during this time period. These components conduct a wide range of R&D, from cybersecurity to border security projects. S&T generally leads or funds R&D projects by providing technology and knowledge products to support four homeland security mission areas:
- Disaster resilience. Improving community resilience to natural disasters through technology and tools;
- Critical incidents. Improving response technological capabilities;
- Border security. Improving the nation's ability to detect, interdict and prosecute illegal activity across air, land and sea.
- Cybersecurity. Developing technologies and tools to secure systems and critical infrastructures against cyberattacks.
S&T strengthened its R&D coordination efforts across DHS, but some challenges remain. In 2015, DHS established an R&D coordination mechanism, to be led by S&T, and in 2017 issued R&D coordination-related guidance. Specifically, to improve coordination, DHS established an Integrated Product Team (IPT) process to serve as the key R&D coordination mechanism within DHS. All ten DHS components that GAO interviewed stated that the IPT process improved visibility into DHS R&D efforts. However, the component that obligated approximately 17 percent of DHS R&D funds in 2017, or $176 million, did not participate in the IPT process in 2018, as required. Nonparticipation poses a risk to R&D coordination efforts across DHS, including R&D project information not being shared among components. Furthermore, ensuring that all required components participate in the IPT process would help S&T maintain visibility of R&D projects in order to fulfill its statutory role of coordinating R&D, and mitigate the risk of potential duplication of effort.
S&T, in its coordination role for DHS, uses disparate information sources to identify and track R&D project information and faces challenges to track progress and other information for ongoing R&D projects. For example, R&D project information is stored in multiple information sources leading to difficulty in integrating complete R&D project information and resulting in reporting that is not comprehensive. By developing a mechanism to address these challenges, S&T can further improve its efforts to report and analyze R&D project information, and have improved visibility on R&D efforts across DHS. GAO also identified challenges in collecting information related to R&D performance. Among other things, DHS is not well positioned to integrate the results and share lessons learned because limited R&D customer feedback information is collected and analyzed. Of the seven DHS components with R&D budget authority, two reported having formal customer feedback mechanisms. As a result, DHS is unable to more fully understand its customers' perceptions and experience which would allow DHS to better assess the performance of its R&D efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Conducting R&D on technologies is vital to enhancing the security of the nation. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, designates S&T as responsible for coordinating all R&D activities of DHS. Questions have been raised about S&T's ability to demonstrate the impact of its R&D investments. Since DHS began operations in 2003, GAO has made recommendations to help improve DHS's efforts to coordinate and oversee R&D.
GAO was asked to review DHS's R&D efforts. This report examines (1) how much DHS has obligated for R&D and what types of R&D DHS conducts, (2) to what extent S&T coordinates R&D across DHS, and (3) how, if at all, DHS identifies and tracks R&D efforts.
GAO reviewed documentation from DHS related to the conduct, coordination, tracking, and evaluation of R&D projects. GAO interviewed DHS officials with responsibilities related to, among other things, R&D financial reporting, performance evaluation, and the IPT process, including officials from the 10 DHS components that participate in the IPTs. GAO also reviewed DHS R&D budget and obligation data from fiscal years 2010 through 2017."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, with which DHS concurred, including that DHS: 1) ensure all components participate in the IPT process, 2) develop a mechanism that aligns R&D project tracking sources, and 3) collect feedback from R&D customers."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-210?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Private Health Insurance
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on private health insurance market concentration. The report (GAO-19-306) is titled "Private Health Insurance: Enrollment Remains Concentrated among Few Issuers, including in Exchanges".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on private health insurance market concentration. The report (GAO-19-306) is titled "Private Health Insurance: Enrollment Remains Concentrated among Few Issuers, including in Exchanges". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia,chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Enrollment in private health insurance plans continued to be concentrated among a small number of issuers in 2015 and 2016. In the overall large group market (coverage offered by large employers), small group market (coverage offered by small employers), and individual market (coverage sold directly to individuals), the three largest issuers held 80 percent of the market or more in at least 37 of 51 states. This is similar to what GAO previously reported for 2011 through 2014.
GAO also found that within the overall individual and small group markets in each state, the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) were also concentrated from 2015 to 2017.
* For the individual market exchanges, in each year, three or fewer issuers held 80 percent or more of the market, on average, in at least 46 of the 49 state exchanges for which GAO had data. Further, the largest issuers increased their market share in about two-thirds of exchanges. The number of issuers participating in a market and their market shares can affect concentration, and many individual exchanges generally had a decreasing number of participating issuers over time.
* For the small group market exchanges, in each year, three or fewer issuers held 80 percent or more of the market in at least 42 of the 46 state exchanges for which GAO had data. The small group exchanges also had slight changes in issuer participation and market share over this time period.
GAO received technical comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Health and Human Services and incorporated them as appropriate."
Why GAO Did This Study: "A highly concentrated health insurance market may indicate less competition and could affect consumers' choice of issuers and the premiums they pay. In 2014, PPACA required the establishment of health insurance exchanges--a new type of marketplace where individuals and small groups can compare and select among insurance plans sold by participating issuers--and the introduction of other reforms that could affect market concentration and competition among issuers. GAO previously reported that enrollment through these newly established exchanges was also generally concentrated.
PPACA included a provision for GAO to study market concentration. This report describes changes in the concentration of enrollment among issuers in (1) overall individual, small group, and large group markets, and (2) individual and small group exchanges.
GAO determined market share in the overall markets using enrollment data from 2015 and 2016 that issuers are required to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and compared that data to 2011 through 2014 enrollment data GAO analyzed in previous reports. GAO determined market share in the exchanges from 2015 through 2017 using other sources of enrollment data from CMS and states. For all data sets, GAO used the most recent data available."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-306?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on UN Peacekeeping Operations
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the United Nations peacekeeping operations. The report (GAO-19-224) is titled "UN Peacekeeping Operations: State Should Take Additional Steps to Work with the UN to Improve Effectiveness and Performance Information".The report was sent to Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, chairman, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy, on March 19. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the United Nations peacekeeping operations. The report (GAO-19-224) is titled "UN Peacekeeping Operations: State Should Take Additional Steps to Work with the UN to Improve Effectiveness and Performance Information". The report was sent to Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, chairman, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy, on March 19.Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The United Nations (UN) Security Council establishes and renews peacekeeping operations by issuing resolutions, generally referred to as mandates, which can include a range of tasks, such as monitoring ceasefires and protecting civilians. Generally once or twice a year, the Security Council renews an operation's mandate and makes adjustments as needed.
GAO's review of the Department of State's (State) assessments as of December 2018 and discussions with State officials found that UN peacekeeping operations generally do not fully meet U.S. principles for effective peacekeeping, which include host country consent and an exit strategy, among others. GAO's review of 11 operations found that all 11 met or partially met the principle of host country consent, while five included or partially included an exit strategy. State officials stated that they must continue to work with the UN to ensure peacekeeping operations meet principles of effectiveness, which they noted are key to success.
The United States works with the UN Security Council and member states to adjust peacekeeping mandates, but it lacks sufficient information to determine if associated resources accurately reflect these adjustments. State officials noted that they do not have this information because UN peacekeeping budgets do not estimate costs by mandated task. UN peacekeeping guidance states that when the UN changes a peacekeeping mandate, it should make commensurate changes to that operation's resources. Without information on estimated costs by task, member states have difficulty determining that resources for UN peacekeeping operations accurately reflect mandate changes.
The UN has taken steps to improve peacekeeping performance data, but member states have raised concerns about that information's quality, including its completeness and timeliness. Among other concerns, member states note that the UN does not have complete information to assess the performance of civilians, who comprised about 14 percent of peacekeeping personnel, as of December 2018. In March 2018 the UN began peacekeeping reforms, including those to improve performance data. However, according to State officials, these efforts are in the early stages and more work is needed. Without fully addressing member states' concerns about the quality of information, the UN is limited in its ability to improve the performance of peacekeeping operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As of December 2018, the UN had 14 ongoing peacekeeping operations with approximately 103,000 personnel. The United States is the single largest financial contributor to these operations, assessed by the UN to contribute an estimated $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2018, according to State. It is also a member of the Security Council, the UN body tasked with maintaining international peace and security.
GAO was asked to review UN peacekeeping operations. In this report, GAO examines (1) the UN's process to establish and renew peacekeeping operations, including the tasks these operations perform; (2) State's assessment of the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations; (3) how the United States works within the UN to adjust peacekeeping mandates and associated resources; and (4) member states' concerns regarding the UN's performance information. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed UN and U.S. documents and interviewed UN and U.S. officials. GAO also interviewed officials at peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, and Lebanon. GAO selected these operations because they represent those that perform a variety of tasks and are located in diverse regions."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State take additional steps to ensure that the UN (1) peacekeeping operations meet principles of effectiveness, (2) provides information on the estimated costs of mandated tasks, and (3) addresses member states' concerns about the quality of performance information. State agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-224?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on International Air Alliances
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on consumer issues related to immunized international air alliances. The report (GAO-19-237) is titled "International Air Alliances: Greater Transparency Needed on DOT's Efforts to Monitor the Effects of Antitrust Immunity".The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, on March 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Potential effects ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on consumer issues related to immunized international air alliances. The report (GAO-19-237) is titled "International Air Alliances: Greater Transparency Needed on DOT's Efforts to Monitor the Effects of Antitrust Immunity". The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, on March 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Potential effectson consumers are included in the analyses the Department of Transportation (DOT) conducts when reviewing international air carriers' requests for antitrust immunity. If granted, this immunity allows the airlines to engage in certain cooperative activities, such as coordinating prices and schedules, without risk of violating U.S. antitrust laws (see figure). DOT's analyses examine:
* The potential competitive effect of the proposed cooperative agreement in terms of relevant markets, on changes in the number of competitors and market shares, and on market entry.
* The potential for the close integration of carriers to create public benefits, such as lower consumer prices or expanded service offerings.
Such analyses involve DOT staff's reviewing an array of data, documents, and reports filed in a public docket by carriers and interested parties and, ultimately, making a decision based on their assessment of the application. DOT has premised its decisions to grant immunity on the expectation that consumer benefits flow from high levels of integration of critical business functions between carriers. To date, DOT has granted antitrust immunity 31 times, with 23 grants currently in effect, which cover agreements made among carriers in each of the three major international air alliances. DOT has rejected three applications due to concerns about potential anticompetitive harm or insufficient public benefits for consumers. Stakeholders GAO interviewed generally agreed that DOT's decisions were transparent, but some disagreed on the potential benefits of immunity for consumers.
DOT takes multiple steps to monitor alliances and understand the effects of immunity. Since 2009, DOT has required all transatlantic and transpacific partnerships to submit annual reports on the status of their immunized agreement. Additionally, DOT recently commissioned an empirical evaluation of immunities' effects and is currently reviewing the findings. However, DOT does not externally report information on the effects of granted immunities to Congress, industry stakeholders, and the public. As a result, these external entities are unable to determine what, if any, steps DOT is taking to ensure that grants of antitrust immunity remain in the public interest. Further, without additional transparency and information on DOT's findings on the effects of immunities, external entities do not know if immunized alliances have delivered the expected consumer benefits that DOT used as a basis to approve the carriers' request for antitrust immunity. (Figure Omitted)"
Why GAO Did This Study: "Each year, millions of passengers travel internationally by plane. Many of these passengers are served by U.S. and foreign air carriers that have formed alliances to coordinate and integrate their networks. With antitrust immunity provided by DOT, airline alliances pursue a wide range of cooperative activities as outlined in joint venture agreements between the airlines. While this cooperation is meant to provide consumers with better services, it could also affect the extent of airline competition.
GAO was asked to review consumer issues related to immunized international air alliances. This report (1) describes how DOT's review of antitrust immunity applications considers the potential effects on consumers and (2) evaluates how DOT monitors approved grants of antitrust immunity. GAO analyzed DOT's antitrust immunity proceedings, interviewed officials from DOT, the Department of Justice, as well as a nongeneralizable selection of 13 stakeholders, including consumer organizations and domestic air carriers with and without antitrust immunity."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOT externally report to policymakers and the public on the effects of antitrust immunity, based on DOT's monitoring activities. DOT agreed to provide public information on its monitoring, but not to report on the effects of antitrust immunity. GAO continues to believe its recommendation, in full, is valid as discussed further in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-237?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Home Loan Banks
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Federal Home Loan Banks' implementation of board diversity and inclusion matters. The report (GAO-19-252) is titled "Federal Home Loan Banks: Steps Have Been Taken to Promote Board Diversity, but Challenges Remain".The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, chairwoman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Financial Services ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Federal Home Loan Banks' implementation of board diversity and inclusion matters. The report (GAO-19-252) is titled "Federal Home Loan Banks: Steps Have Been Taken to Promote Board Diversity, but Challenges Remain". The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, chairwoman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Financial Servicessubcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has taken formal and informal steps to encourage board diversity at Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBank) since 2015. For example, FHFA required FHLBanks to add board demographic data to their annual reports; clarified how banks can conduct outreach to diverse board candidates; and allowed some banks to add an independent director.
Since 2015, the share of women and minority directors on the boards of FHLBanks increased (see figure). The number of women directors increased from 34 in 2015 to 44 in October 2018, and the number of minority directors increased from 20 in 2015 to 30 in 2017, based on most recently available data. Trends for minority directors were less clear, because the banks' varying data collections processes did not always allow them to determine the extent to which directors opted out or forgot to answer data collection forms. FHFA stated that it planned to use board data to establish a baseline to analyze diversity trends. A review of the banks' data collection processes would help identify whether practices exist that could help improve the completeness of the data.
(Figure Omitted)
FHLBanks reported they continued to face some challenges to their efforts to promote board diversity, especially among member director seats. The challenges include (1) balancing the addition of new women or minority directors with retaining the institutional knowledge of existing directors; and (2) competing with other organizations for qualified female and minority board candidates. Despite reported challenges, FHLBanks have taken measures to promote board diversity, such as establishing a task force to promote board diversity through information sharing and training. Individually, the FHLBanks emphasized the importance of diversity in election materials, built pools of diverse candidates, and conducted outreach to industry and trade groups. They also took actions to increase diversity specifically among member directors, including filling interim board seats with women and minority candidates and encouraging directors to personally reach out to potential women and minority candidates."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The FHLBank System consists of 11 regionally based banks cooperatively owned by member institutions. In 2018, each FHLBank had a board of 14-24 directors. Member directors are nominated from member institutions and independent directors from outside the system. Member institutions vote on all directors. At least two independent directors on a board must represent consumer or community interests. FHFA is the regulator of the FHLBanks.
GAO was asked to review FHLBanks' implementation of board diversity and inclusion matters. This report examines (1) steps FHFA took to encourage board diversity at FHLBanks; (2) trends in gender, race, and ethnicity on FHLBank boards; and (3) challenges FHLBanks face and practices they use to recruit and maintain diverse boards. GAO analyzed FHLBank data on board demographics, reviewed policies and regulations, and reviewed previous GAO work on diversity at FHLBanks and the financial services industry. GAO interviewed FHFA and FHLBank staff and a nongeneralizable sample of FHLBank board directors and external stakeholders knowledgeable about board diversity."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FHFA, in consultation with FHLBanks, review data collection processes for board demographic information and communicate effective practices to banks. FHFA agreed with GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-252?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Air Ambulance
WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on air ambulance services. The report (GAO-19-292) is titled "Air Ambulance: Available Data Show Privately-Insured Patients Are at Financial Risk".The report was sent to Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, chairwoman, and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on air ambulance services. The report (GAO-19-292) is titled "Air Ambulance: Available Data Show Privately-Insured Patients Are at Financial Risk". The report was sent to Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, chairwoman, and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Healthand Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, on March 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Privately-insured patients transported by air ambulance providers outside of their insurers' provider networks are at financial risk for balance bills--which, as the figure shows, are for the difference between prices charged by providers and payments by insurers. Any balance bills are in addition to copayments or other types of cost-sharing typically paid by patients under their insurance coverage.
(Figure Omitted)
According to GAO's analysis of the most complete data identified for air ambulance transports of privately-insured patients, 69 percent of about 20,700 transports in the data set were out-of-network in 2017. This is higher than what research shows for ground ambulance transports (51 percent in 2014 according to one study) and other emergency services. Air ambulance providers that GAO spoke with reported entering into more network contracts recently, which could lower the extent of out-of-network transports in areas covered by the contracts.
While out-of-network transports may result in balance billing, the data GAO analyzed do not indicate the extent to which patients received balance bills and, if so, the size of the bills. In addition, as GAO reported in 2017, there is a lack of national data on balance billing, but some states have attempted to collect information from patients. For example, GAO reviewed over 60 consumer complaints received by two of GAO's selected states--the only states able to provide information on the amount of individual balance bills--and all but one complaint was for a balance bill over $10,000. Patients may not end up paying the full amount if they reach agreements with air ambulance providers, insurers, or both. The amounts of potential balance bills are informed in part by the prices charged. GAO's analysis of the data set with transports for privately-insured patients found the median price charged by air ambulance providers was about $36,400 for a helicopter transport and $40,600 for a fixed-wing transport in 2017.
The six states reviewed by GAO and others have attempted to limit balance billing. For example, the six states have taken actions to regulate insurers, generate public attention, or both. As required by recent federal law, the Secretary of Transportation has taken steps to form an advisory committee to, among other things, recommend options to prevent instances of balance billing."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Air ambulances provide emergency services for critically ill patients. Relatively few patients receive such transports, but those who do typically have no control over the selection of the provider, which means privately-insured patients may be transported by out-of-network providers.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a provision for GAO to review air ambulance services. Among other objectives, this report describes (1) the extent of out-of-network transports and balance billing and (2) the approaches selected states have taken to limit potential balance billing.
GAO analyzed a private health insurance data set for air ambulance transports with information on network status and prices charged in 2017 (the most recent data available). Although this was the most complete data identified, the data may not be representative of all private insurers. In addition, GAO interviewed officials in six states (Florida, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Texas) selected in part for variation in approaches to limit balance billing and location. GAO also interviewed air ambulance providers, health insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Department of Transportation (DOT) officials. DOT provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate, and the Department of Health and Human Services had no comments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-292?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Student, Exchange Visitor Program
WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on potential vulnerabilities to fraud in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The report (GAO-19-297) is titled "Student and Exchange Visitor Program: DHS Can Take Additional Steps to Manage Fraud Risks Related to School Recertification and Program Oversight".The report was sent to Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, and Rep. Michael T. McCaul, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on potential vulnerabilities to fraud in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The report (GAO-19-297) is titled "Student and Exchange Visitor Program: DHS Can Take Additional Steps to Manage Fraud Risks Related to School Recertification and Program Oversight". The report was sent to Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, and Rep. Michael T. McCaul,R-Texas, on March 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has identified several fraud risks to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). As shown in the figure below, these include risks associated with school owners and designated school officials (DSO) who help ICE oversee students in the program. These fraud risks may occur as schools apply to become SEVP-certified, accept foreign students, and apply for recertification every 2 years.
(Figure Omitted)
ICE has implemented controls to address fraud risks related to school certification, but long-standing delays in recertifying these schools exacerbate fraud risks. By statute and regulation, ICE must conduct recertification reviews every 2 years to ensure that schools continue to meet program requirements--an important fraud risk control. Between 2013 and 2017, ICE recertified about 12,900 schools. However, according to ICE officials, they have been unable to meet the 2-year time frame and, as of June 2018, had 3,281 recertification petitions waiting for review. To help manage its queue, ICE has lengthened the period between recertification reviews by extending schools' certification expiration dates by 180 days, which is inconsistent with its regulation and may allow fraudulent schools to operate longer without detection. Although ICE is taking steps to increase resources for recertification, it is unclear whether these steps will ensure recertification is conducted consistently with ICE regulations.
ICE relies on DSOs to, among other things, update and maintain foreign-student data in ICE's foreign-student information system and report suspected fraud to ICE. However, ICE does not provide DSOs with training that addresses fraud risks to the program. In June 2018, ICE officials stated that they plan to develop this fraud training for DSOs, but do not have documented plans or timelines for when it would be completed. By developing these plans, the agency would be better positioned to ensure that DSOs receive the training needed to address potential fraud in the program."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As of March 2018, more than 1.2 million foreign students in the United States were enrolled in 8,774 schools certified by SEVP. ICE is responsible for managing SEVP, which certifies schools to enroll foreign students. Various ICE offices have a role in preventing, detecting, and responding to potential fraud in the program. GAO was asked to review potential vulnerabilities to fraud in SEVP. GAO examined, among other things, the extent to which ICE (1) implemented controls to address fraud risks in the school certification and recertification processes and (2) implemented fraud risk controls related to DSO training.
GAO analyzed ICE policies and documentation, including fraud risk guidance and procedures for school certification and recertification; analyzed 2013 through 2017 recertification data; and interviewed officials from five ICE field offices that GAO selected based on their experience investigating program fraud. GAO also interviewed officials from 17 selected schools located near these ICE field offices. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in November 2018. Information that DHS deemed sensitive has been omitted."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that ICE (1) notify schools 180 days prior to the 2-year certification expiration date, as required, and evaluate whether additional resources for recertification are needed, and (2) develop a plan to implement fraud-specific training for DSOs. ICE concurred with all of GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-297?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Space Acquisitions
WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges in software-intensive Department of Defense space programs. The report (GAO-19-136) is titled "DOD Space Acquisitions: Including Users Early and Often in Software Development Could Benefit Programs".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges in software-intensive Department of Defense space programs. The report (GAO-19-136) is titled "DOD Space Acquisitions: Including Users Early and Often in Software Development Could Benefit Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. AdamSmith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on March 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The four major Department of Defense (DOD) software-intensive space programs that GAO reviewed struggled to effectively engage system users. These programs are the Air Force's Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Increment 2 (JMS), Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX), Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS); and the Navy's Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). These ongoing programs are estimated to cost billions of dollars, have experienced overruns of up to three times originally estimated cost, and have been in development for periods ranging from 5 to over 20 years. Previous GAO reports, as well as DOD and industry studies, have found that user involvement is critical to the success of any software development effort. For example, GAO previously reported that obtaining frequent feedback is linked to reducing risk, improving customer commitment, and improving technical staff motivation. However, the programs GAO reviewed often did not demonstrate characteristics of effective user engagement that are identified in DOD policy and statute:
- Early engagement. OCX involved users early; JMS planned to but, in practice, did not; SBIRS and MUOS did not plan to involve users early.
- Continual engagement. JMS, OCX, and SBIRS all planned to continually involve users but, in practice, did not fully do so; MUOS did not plan to do so.
- Feedback based on actual working software. OCX and SBIRS provided users opportunities to give such feedback but only years into software development; JMS and MUOS did not provide opportunities for feedback.
- Feedback incorporated into subsequent development. JMS, OCX, and SBIRS all planned to incorporate user feedback but, in practice, have not done so throughout development; MUOS did not plan to do so.
As reflected above, actual program efforts to involve users and obtain and incorporate feedback were often unsuccessful. This was due, in part, to the lack of specific guidance on user involvement and feedback. Although DOD policies state that users should be involved and provide feedback on software development projects, they do not provide specific guidance on the timing, frequency, and documentation of such efforts. Without obtaining user feedback and acceptance, programs risk delivering systems that do not meet users' needs. In selected instances, the lack of user involvement has contributed to systems that were later found to be operationally unsuitable.
The programs GAO reviewed also faced software-specific challenges in using commercial software, applying outdated software tools, and having limited knowledge and training in newer software development techniques. For example, programs using commercial software often underestimated the effort required to integrate such software into an overall system. Secondly, selected programs relied on obsolete software tools that they were accustomed to using but which industry had since replaced. Finally, GAO found that two of the reviewed programs lacked knowledge of more modern software development approaches. DOD has acknowledged these challenges and has efforts underway to address each of them."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Over the next 5 years, DOD plans to spend over $65 billion on its space system acquisitions portfolio, including many systems that rely on software for key capabilities. However, software-intensive space systems have had a history of significant schedule delays and billions of dollars in cost growth.
Senate and House reports accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 contained provisions for GAO to review challenges in software-intensive DOD space programs. This report addresses, among other things, (1) the extent to which these programs have involved users; and (2) what software-specific management challenges, if any, programs faced.
To do this work, GAO reviewed four major space defense programs with cost growth or schedule delays caused, in part, by software. GAO reviewed applicable statutes and DOD policies and guidance that identified four characteristics of effective user engagement. GAO reviewed program documentation; and interviewed program officials, contractors, and space systems users. GAO also analyzed program metrics, test and evaluation reports, and external program assessments."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations that DOD ensure its guidance that addresses software development provides specific, required direction on the timing, frequency, and documentation of user involvement and feedback. DOD concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-136?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Ethics Programs
WASHINGTON, March 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on compliance with ethics requirements for political appointees in the executive branch. The report (GAO-19-249) is titled "Federal Ethics Programs: Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on compliance with ethics requirements for political appointees in the executive branch. The report (GAO-19-249) is titled "Federal Ethics Programs: Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommitteeon Investigations, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "There is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely. Political appointees make or advocate policy for a presidential administration or support those positions. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two nongovernmental organizations collect, and in some cases, report data on political appointees, but the data are incomplete. For example, the data did not include information on political appointee positions within the Executive Office of the President. The White House Office of Presidential Personnel (PPO) maintains data but does not make them publicly available.
The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable. As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch. OPM is positioned to maintain and make political appointee data publicly available on a timely basis but is limited in its ability to provide comprehensive data. PPO has more comprehensive data but may not be positioned to publish data on a recurring basis. Ultimately, it is a policy decision as to which agency is best positioned to report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees.
All three agencies GAO reviewed generally used appropriate internal controls to ensure they met basic ethics program requirements, though two of the agencies could take actions to strengthen their ethics programs.
* The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Interior (Interior), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) all have procedures for administering their financial disclosure systems. HHS and Interior had procedures for providing initial ethics training as required beginning in January 2017. Prior to February 2019 SBA did not have written procedures for initial ethics training and did not adequately document political appointees' training dates. SBA's written procedures now reflect the requirements of initial ethics training and SBA developed a tracking sheet to indicate appointees completed training. GAO will assess the implementation of the tracking sheet to confirm the process is sufficient for documenting appointees' completion of initial ethics training.
* Interior's ethics program has human capital and workforce continuity challenges. Interior reported that four out of 14 full-time positions were vacant. Interior officials attributed the vacancies to a recent transformation of the ethics program and prioritizing the staffing at individual bureaus such as the National Park Service. However, vacancies affected the ethics program's ability to properly document policies and procedures as well as file and review financial disclosure forms. According to Interior officials, steps are being taken to address vacancies and document policies and procedures. However, GAO found that a more strategic and documented approach would enable Interior to better manage human capital, fill key positions, and maintain institutional knowledge."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Federal agencies' ethics programs seek to prevent conflicts of interest and safeguard the integrity of governmental decision-making.
GAO was asked to review compliance with ethics requirements for political appointees in the executive branch. This report examines the extent to which (1) existing data identify political appointees serving in the executive branch, and (2) selected agencies use internal controls to reasonably ensure that their ethics programs are designed and implemented to meet statutory and regulatory requirements.
GAO reviewed available data on political appointees. GAO also reviewed three case study agencies selected to provide a range in agency size and number of political appointees. GAO reviewed ethics documentation for a nongeneralizable sample of political appointees at the three agencies at any point between January 2017 and 2018 and interviewed officials from the agencies and two non-governmental organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider legislation requiring the publication of political appointees serving in the executive branch. GAO also recommends three actions: SBA should document that training was completed; Interior should conduct more strategic planning for its ethics workforce and document ethics program policies and procedures. SBA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation, but provided documentation that partially addresses the recommendation. Interior agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-249?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on U.S. Ports of Entry
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Customs and Border Protection public-private partnership programs. The report (GAO-19-263R) is titled "U.S. Ports of Entry: Update on CBP Public-Private Partnership Programs".The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Customs and Border Protection public-private partnership programs. The report (GAO-19-263R) is titled "U.S. Ports of Entry: Update on CBP Public-Private Partnership Programs". The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C.Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, chairman, Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-California, chairman, and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since our March 2018 report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continued to expand its public-private partnership programs--the Reimbursable Services Program (RSP) and Donations Acceptance Program (DAP). The RSP allows partners to reimburse CBP for providing services that exceed CBP's normal operations, such as paying overtime for CBP personnel that provide services at ports of entry outside normal business hours. The DAP enables partners to donate property or provide funding for port of entry infrastructure improvements. For example, from July 2017 through October 2018, CBP selected an additional 58 RSP applications, bringing the total number of RSP selections since 2013 to 172. In addition, CBP and its RSP partners established 36 new Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) as of December 2018 that outline how RSP agreements are implemented at specific ports of entry. Twenty-four of the 36 new MOUs pertain to providing CBP services at air ports of entry, such as freight or cargo processing, and traveler processing. Although the number of RSP selections increased, the number of CBP assignments and officer overtime hours provided through the RSP in 2018 was comparable to services provided in 2017. Regarding DAP, in fiscal year 2018, CBP entered into 17 new DAP agreements bringing the total number of agreements to 33 since fiscal year 2015. Partners span a variety of sectors, including state and local governments, and private companies, such as airlines. Donations served a variety of purposes, such as expanding inspection facility infrastructure, providing biometric detection services, and providing luggage for canine training. As of December 2018, CBP officials estimated that the total value of all DAP donations was $218 million.
In response to GAO's March 2018 recommendation, CBP developed the Alternative Funding Programs: Program Performance Management Plan, in April 2018, and plans to issue an assessment report in April 2019. GAO reviewed this plan and found that it contains program goals and metrics, along with methodologies to collect and analyze various qualitative and quantitative data. For example, RSP performance metrics span four overarching goals related to exploring new partnerships, facilitating existing partnerships, and measuring the benefits and effectiveness of the program. Similar goals are defined for the DAP. In addition, the plan lists a total of 27 measurable objectives and associated metrics for the RSP and DAP. CBP also surveyed RSP partners to gain insights on their experiences with the program and to identify potential areas for improvement and distributed an internal questionnaire to CBP officials at POEs. As of December 2018, CBP reported that it had completed data collection as called for in the plan, and was analyzing results. CBP expects to issue internally an assessment report for the RSP and DAP based on this analysis in April 2019, and then on an annual basis. To fully address GAO's March 2018 recommendation, CBP should complete and issue its planned assessment report."
Why GAO Did This Study: "On a typical day in fiscal year 2017, CBP officers inspected over 1 million passengers and pedestrians and over 78,000 truck, rail, and sea containers worth approximately $7.2 billion at 328 U.S. land, sea, and air ports of entry, according to CBP. To help meet demand for these types of CBP services, since 2013, CBP has entered into public-private partnerships under RSP and DAP. The RSP allows partners to reimburse CBP for providing services that exceed CBP's normal operations, such as paying overtime for CBP personnel that provide services at ports of entry outside normal business hours. The DAP enables partners to donate property or provide funding for port of entry infrastructure improvements.
The Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016 included a provision for GAO to annually review the agreements and funds and donations that CBP and GSA have received under the RSP and DAP. GAO issued the first annual report in March 2018, and found that the partnerships have benefits, but that CBP could benefit from establishing an evaluation plan to assess overall program performance. Thus, GAO recommended that CBP develop and implement an evaluation plan to assess the overall performance of RSP and DAP. CBP concurred with this recommendation.
This second annual report updates key information from the March 2018 report, and examines: (1) the status of CBP public-private partnership program agreements, including the purposes for which CBP has used the funds and donations from these agreements in 2017 and 2018; and (2) the extent that CBP addressed GAO's March 2018 recommendation to develop and implement an evaluation plan to assess the overall performance of public-private partnership programs. GAO reviewed partnership agreements and data on program usage. GAO also reviewed CBP's 2018 Alternative Funding Programs: Program Performance Management Plan, and interviewed CBP officials.
GAO is not making any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-263R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Transit Workforce Development
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on various issues related to the sufficiency of the transit workforce. The report (GAO-19-290) is titled "Transit Workforce Development: Improved Strategic Planning Practices Could Enhance FTA Efforts".The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The nation's transit infrastructure requires a trained workforce, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on various issues related to the sufficiency of the transit workforce. The report (GAO-19-290) is titled "Transit Workforce Development: Improved Strategic Planning Practices Could Enhance FTA Efforts". The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The nation's transit infrastructure requires a trained workforce,consisting of a variety of occupations (see figure), to operate, maintain, and oversee it.
(Figure Omitted)
Information on future transit workforce needs is limited in part by the absence of transit-specific workforce projections. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) officials, the best information available is an August 2015 report developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and other federal stakeholders to produce transportation job projections. However, the report's transit data are combined with ground passenger transportation data (e.g., school buses, taxis), and many of these services are specifically excluded from the statutory definition of transit. Transit-specific data were not available and would be costly to obtain, according to the researchers who wrote the report. Thus, the report does not exclusively reflect the transit workforce. The views of stakeholders GAO interviewed varied regarding whether additional workforce data were needed. Working with stakeholders to understand what, if any, additional information is needed could enable FTA to weigh the complete costs and benefits of developing future transit workforce data. This approach could also enable FTA to make informed decisions on allocating the appropriate resources toward transit workforce efforts.
While FTA assists transit stakeholders with addressing workforce needs--for example, providing about $29 million in workforce development assistance in fiscal year 2017--it lacks key strategic planning practices that could ensure its efforts are effective. FTA first reported to Congress in 2016 that it planned to develop a transit workforce strategic plan; however, no clear action has been taken to develop one so far. Further, FTA does not have clearly defined performance goals and measures--as outlined in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010--for FTA's transit workforce development efforts. Without these key strategic planning practices, FTA is limited in its ability to make informed decisions about effectively leveraging its resources to address future transit workforce needs and in measuring the effectiveness of its efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FTA provides more than $12 billion annually to support and expand transit services. The operation of transit systems depends on a skilled, qualified workforce, but impending transit worker retirements and advances in transit technology may create challenges for the transit workforce such as finding eligible applicants for transit jobs and obtaining the technology expertise needed.
GAO was asked to review various issues related to the sufficiency of the transit workforce. This report discusses the extent to which: (1) information exists about future transit workforce needs and (2) FTA assists with addressing current and future transit workforce needs, among other things. GAO reviewed DOT and FTA documents, including strategic and performance plans, and interviewed DOT and FTA officials and other transit stakeholders, including representatives of transit agencies, research organizations, and unions. Stakeholders were selected based on recommendations from other transit stakeholders and for geographic diversity, among other factors."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to FTA: (1) in collaboration with stakeholders, determine whether additional transit workforce data are needed; (2) develop a comprehensive transit workforce strategy; and (3) develop performance goals and measures for FTA's transit workforce development efforts. DOT concurred with our recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-290?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Puerto Rico Hurricanes
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-256) is titled "Puerto Rico Hurricanes: Status of FEMA Funding, Oversight, and Recovery Challenges".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-256) is titled "Puerto Rico Hurricanes: Status of FEMA Funding, Oversight, and Recovery Challenges". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) obligated almost $4 billion in Public Assistance grant funding to Puerto Rico as of September 30, 2018 in response to the 2017 hurricanes. FEMA obligated about $3.63 billion for emergency work--emergency measures such as debris removal and generators--and about $151 million for permanent work to repair and replace public infrastructure such as roads (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
Puerto Rico established a central recovery office to oversee federal recovery funds and is developing an internal controls plan to help ensure better management and accountability of the funds. In the interim, FEMA instituted a manual reimbursement process--requiring FEMA to review each reimbursement request before providing Public Assistance funds--to mitigate risk and help ensure financial accountability. FEMA officials stated that they will remove this manual process once the agency approves Puerto Rico's internal controls plan.
Officials from FEMA and Puerto Rico's central recovery office and municipalities that GAO interviewed reported initial challenges with the recovery process, including with Public Assistance alternative procedures. Unlike in the standard Public Assistance program where FEMA will fund the actual cost of a project, the Public Assistance alternative procedures allow awards for permanent work projects to be made on the basis of fixed cost estimates to provide financial incentives for the timely and cost-effective completion of work. Challenges identified included concerns about lack of experience and knowledge of the alternative procedures being applied in Puerto Rico; concerns about missing, incomplete, or conflicting guidance on the alternative procedures; and concerns that municipalities have not been fully reimbursed for work already completed in the immediate aftermath of the hurricanes, causing financial hardships in some municipalities.
FEMA officials stated that the agency is taking actions to address reported recovery challenges, such as leveraging existing expertise to train personnel and developing supplemental guidance on alternative procedures and reducing delays in reimbursements. GAO will continue to monitor these issues and plans to report additional findings and recommendations as appropriate later this year."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2017 two major hurricanes - Irma and Maria - caused extensive damage throughout Puerto Rico. Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 hurricane, was the most intense hurricane to make landfall in Puerto Rico since 1928, destroying roads, buildings, and cutting power and communication lines, among other things. Puerto Rico estimates that $132 billion will be needed to repair and reconstruct infrastructure and services. FEMA--a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--is the lead federal agency responsible for assisting Puerto Rico as it recovers. FEMA administers the Public Assistance program in partnership with Puerto Rico to provide funds to rebuild damaged infrastructure and restore critically-needed services.
GAO was asked to review the federal government's recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. This report, among other objectives, describes (1) FEMA's Public Assistance spending in Puerto Rico and oversight efforts of federal recovery funds, and (2) initial challenges with the recovery process. GAO reviewed Public Assistance program documents; analyzed grant funding data; and interviewed officials from Puerto Rico and DHS about the Public Assistance program and recovery efforts, as well as officials from ten municipalities selected on the basis of population and Public Assistance spending.
GAO is not making recommendations at this time, but will continue monitoring the recovery as part of its ongoing work."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-256?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Postal Service's Policies for Piloting Innovations
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Postal Service's efforts to develop postal innovations. The report (GAO-19-293) is titled "U.S. Postal Service: Addressing Policy Gaps Could Improve Pilot Design and Evaluation for Postal Innovations".The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the U.S. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Postal Service's efforts to develop postal innovations. The report (GAO-19-293) is titled "U.S. Postal Service: Addressing Policy Gaps Could Improve Pilot Design and Evaluation for Postal Innovations". The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the U.S.Postal Service (USPS) piloted 24 key innovations intended primarily to generate revenue or improve customers' experience. The following four selected innovations illustrate these efforts:
- Same-Day Delivery: USPS delivered goods consumers bought online or in stores. The pilot sought to test the product's feasibility and revenue potential.
- Grocery Delivery: USPS delivered groceries to consumers in metropolitan areas. The pilot sought to test the product's feasibility and revenue potential.
- Informed Delivery: USPS emailed customers an advance image of the mail they would receive. The pilot sought to test the service's potential benefits, such as generating new revenue from advertisers that may use the service.
- Keyless Parcel Lockers: USPS is testing lockers where customers can independently pick up packages at post offices. The pilot seeks to test the service's operation and potential benefits for USPS and customers.
USPS's policies for piloting innovations do not fully reflect the five leading practices for pilot design and evaluation identified in GAO's prior work. The policies fully reflect two of the leading practices because they require articulating a methodology for evaluating pilot performance and documenting lessons learned. The policies do not fully reflect the other three practices because they do not require: (1) linking pilot objectives to identified performance measures; (2) documenting conclusions based on pilot results; or (3) communicating with key external stakeholders, as appropriate. These policy gaps limit the extent to which USPS can ensure that it is making good resource allocation decisions based on pilot experiences. For example, GAO found that USPS did not document its conclusions based on the results of its pilots of same-day delivery, grocery delivery, and Informed Delivery. Documenting conclusions can be especially important when USPS continues to offer the product or service after the pilot has concluded, even though the pilot did not achieve all of its objectives, as was the case with these three innovations. Further, while USPS's policies require documenting lessons learned from its pilots, USPS did not do so for some pilots GAO reviewed. Senior USPS officials said that USPS did not consistently follow this policy because it had not developed tools or training that could help ensure such consistency. As a result, USPS risks losing information that could be relevant to future innovation efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "USPS faces a challenging business environment that has led to reduced demand for its traditional services and significant financial losses. USPS aims to address this challenge by offering innovative products and services. The success of these efforts will depend, in part, on how effectively USPS tests each innovation's performance on a small scale to determine whether, how, and when to launch an innovation more broadly--a practice known as "piloting."
GAO was asked to review USPS's efforts to develop postal innovations. This report (1) describes key innovations that USPS recently piloted and (2) examines the extent to which USPS's policies reflect leading practices for pilot design and evaluation. GAO analyzed information on USPS pilots from fiscal years 2013 through 2017; compared USPS policies for piloting innovations to leading practices for pilot design and evaluation in prior GAO work and relevant standards for internal control; and selected four key innovations based on various characteristics (e.g., innovation type) to serve as illustrative examples of USPS's piloting efforts."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that USPS (1) develop policies that fully reflect leading practices for pilot design and evaluation and (2) develop tools or training to ensure consistent documentation of lessons learned from pilots. USPS neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations but described actions it plans to take related to each."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-293?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Grants Management
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agency guidance and grantee compliance related to the Stevens Amendment. The report (GAO-19-282) is titled "Grants Management: Agency Action Required to Ensure Grantees Identify Federal Contribution Amounts".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agency guidance and grantee compliance related to the Stevens Amendment. The report (GAO-19-282) is titled "Grants Management: Agency Action Required to Ensure Grantees Identify Federal Contribution Amounts". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky,chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, and Sen. Joni K. Ernst, R-Iowa, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Stevens Amendment is an appropriations provision that requires grantees of the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education (Education) to disclose for a grant program the percent of the costs financed with federal funds, the federal dollar amount, and the percentage and dollar amount financed by nongovernmental funds. The provision requires that recipients of grants funded by DOL, HHS, and Education make certain funding disclosures when issuing statements, press releases, bid solicitations, and other documents describing their grant project or program. DOL, HHS, and Education generally provide written guidance to grantees with the exact text of the Stevens Amendment or a paraphrased equivalent. In addition, a number of operating divisions within HHS referenced the HHS Grants Policy Statement, which includes language equivalent to the Stevens Amendment, as a way to instruct grantees. One HHS operating division, the Health Resources and Services Administration, provided grantees with additional guidance in the form of a web page that contained examples of funding disclosure statements and frequently asked questions intended to clarify the Stevens Amendment's requirements.
One DOL subagency, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), whose active grants represented more than 95 percent of DOL's total grant dollars, had processes for managing grantees' compliance that were able to identify instances of grantee noncompliance with Stevens Amendment requirements. ETA's operating plan for grant oversight targets 26 percent of its active grants for risk-based monitoring each fiscal year, representing approximately 2,100 grants in fiscal year 2019. The other DOL subagencies either stated that they did not monitor grantees for compliance with Stevens Amendment requirements or did not have processes in place for managing grantee compliance with the requirements of the Stevens Amendment. Most HHS operating divisions said they did not review grantees for Stevens Amendment compliance. Education also did not monitor for grantee compliance with the Stevens Amendment's requirements. Regulations governing federal agencies' management of grants require federal agencies to manage and administer the federal award in a manner that ensures that programs are implemented in full accordance with U.S. statutory and public policy requirements. Without processes for managing compliance, some DOL subagencies, HHS operating divisions, and Education are unable to ensure that grant programs are being implemented by grantees in full accordance with the statutory requirements of the Stevens Amendment.
Most of the subagencies and operating divisions monitoring compliance did not gather information from grantees about how the grantees calculate the dollar amounts and percentages in their Stevens Amendment funding disclosures. For example, DOL's ETA officials said that they do not know how the dollar amounts reported by grantees were calculated, and have not inquired about the level of detail factored into indirect costs involving the grantee organization's structure and the percentage of funds spent on salaries. Similarly, officials from HHS's National Institutes of Health operating division noted that calculations can be difficult given that a research program can have multiple funding streams that feed into a grant project and grantees' research portfolios are now more complex than they have been in the past."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1989, an appropriations provision, colloquially known as the "Stevens Amendment," has reflected Congress's longstanding effort to ensure transparency and accountability in federal grant spending. GAO was asked to review agency guidance and grantee compliance related to the Stevens Amendment. This report (1) describes the guidance DOL, HHS, and Education provide to grantees regarding the Stevens Amendment; (2) examines the extent to which DOL, HHS, and Education are managing grantees' compliance with the Stevens Amendment; and (3) describes what is known about how grantees calculate the dollar amounts and percentages of their federal and nongovernmental funding disclosures. GAO asked for agency guidance documents, reviewed monitoring reports, interviewed officials on agencies' Stevens Amendment oversight efforts, and asked agencies how grantees calculate funding amounts."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOL subagencies (other than ETA), HHS operating divisions, and Education design and implement processes to manage grantees' compliance with the Stevens Amendment. In responding to the report, DOL, one DOL subagency, and HHS agreed with GAO's recommendation. Education disagreed with GAO's recommendation, citing limited monitoring resources and other reasons. GAO believes the recommendation should be fully implemented, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-282?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Strategy
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's analytic approach for informing force structure decisions to implement the National Defense Strategy. The report (GAO-19-385) is titled "Defense Strategy: Revised Analytic Approach Needed to Support Force Structure Decision-Making".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's analytic approach for informing force structure decisions to implement the National Defense Strategy. The report (GAO-19-385) is titled "Defense Strategy: Revised Analytic Approach Needed to Support Force Structure Decision-Making". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the HouseArmed Services Committee, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense's (DOD) analytic approach has not provided senior leaders with the support they need to evaluate and determine the force structure necessary to implement the National Defense Strategy. DOD's analytic approach--Support for Strategic Analysis (SSA)--is used by the services to evaluate their force structure needs and develop their budgets. However, GAO found that SSA has been hindered by three interrelated challenges:
- Products are cumbersome and inflexible. Although DOD guidance states that SSA products are to be common starting points for analysis on plausible threats, including threats identified in strategic guidance, DOD has not kept the products complete and up to date in part because they were highly detailed and complex and therefore cumbersome to develop and analyze.
- Analysis does not significantly deviate from services' programmed force structures or test key assumptions. Although DOD's guidance states that SSA should facilitate a broad range of analysis exploring innovative approaches to mitigate threats identified in the strategy, the services generally have not conducted this type of analysis because guidance has not specifically required the services to do so.
- DOD lacks joint analytic capabilities to assess force structure. Although DOD guidance states that SSA is intended to facilitate the comparison and evaluation of competing force structure options and cross-service tradeoffs, the department has not conducted this type of analysis because it lacks a body or process to do so.
DOD efforts to revise its analytic approach are in the early stages and have not yet identified solutions to these challenges. Moreover, DOD has attempted reforms in the past without success. Without a functioning analytic process that addresses the above challenges, senior leaders do not have the analytic support they need to prioritize force structure investments that would best manage risk and address the threats outlined in the National Defense Strategy."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD's 2018 National Defense Strategy continues the department's shift toward focusing on the challenges posed by major powers--China and Russia. The strategy concludes that DOD must pursue urgent change at a significant scale and starkly warns that failure to properly implement the strategy will rapidly result in a force that is irrelevant to the threats it will face. To implement the change DOD envisions, senior leaders must have quality information.
Senate Report 115-125 includes a provision for GAO to review DOD's analytic approach for informing force structure decisions to implement the National Defense Strategy. This report assesses, among other things, whether DOD's analytic approach has provided senior leaders with the support needed. GAO reviewed DOD guidance, assessed whether DOD was meeting the objectives identified in its guidance, and interviewed agency officials. This is an unclassified version of a classified report issued in February 2019. Information that DOD deemed classified has been omitted."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD (1) determine the analytic products needed and update them, (2) provide specific guidance requiring the services to explore a range of alternative approaches and force structures, and (3) establish an approach for conducting joint force structure analysis across the department. DOD concurred with the recommendations and noted the department has begun addressing them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-385?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Space Systems
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's space acquisition workforce. The report (GAO-19-240) is titled "Defense Space Systems: DOD Should Collect and Maintain Data on Its Space Acquisition Workforce".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's space acquisition workforce. The report (GAO-19-240) is titled "Defense Space Systems: DOD Should Collect and Maintain Data on Its Space Acquisition Workforce". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington,chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on March 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) does not routinely monitor the size, mix, and location of its space acquisition workforce. However, data GAO collected and aggregated from multiple DOD space acquisition organizations show that at least 8,000 personnel in multiple locations nationwide were working on space acquisition activities at the end of 2017 (see figure). Also as shown, military and civilian personnel comprise the majority of the overall workforce, while contractor and Federally Funded Research and Development Center personnel also provide support.
(Figure Omitted)
Several factors hinder DOD's ability to collect data needed for a comprehensive view of its space acquisition workforce:
- DOD does not maintain a complete list of its space acquisition programs;
- DOD's workforce data systems are not configured to identify personnel working on space acquisition activities; and
- DOD space acquisition personnel are dispersed across organizations and some personnel support both space and non-space programs.
Without complete and accurate data, DOD cannot assess gaps in the overall capabilities of the space acquisition workforce. Identifying space programs and collecting such data would also better position DOD to ensure that the appropriate space acquisition personnel are assigned to the new Space Development Agency and the United States Space Command. Finally, comprehensive data on the space acquisition workforce would also be beneficial to support DOD's efforts related to its recent legislative proposal regarding the establishment of the United States Space Force."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD plans to spend about $65 billion from fiscal year 2019 to 2023 on space acquisition programs--including satellites, launch vehicles, ground components, and user equipment. DOD's space acquisition personnel perform a variety of activities, such as preparing and reviewing acquisition documents, to manage or oversee programs that develop or procure space capabilities. DOD recently announced it plans to establish a new Space Development Agency and a United States Space Command.
A House Report accompanying a bill for the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision for GAO to review DOD's space acquisition workforce. This report examines, among other things, what is known about the size, mix, and location of that workforce. GAO collected data from DOD's acquisition workforce data systems and multiple space acquisition organizations. GAO interviewed officials from these organizations and from a non-generalizable sample of 10 space acquisition programs, representing a range of dollar values and stages in the acquisition process."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD (1) identifies the universe of its space acquisition programs and the organizations that support them and (2) collects and maintains data on the workforce that supports these programs. DOD agreed with the first recommendation, but not the second. GAO revised the second recommendation to address DOD's concerns."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-240?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Business Operations
WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has implemented its Chief Management Officer position and issued guidance to communicate within the department the authorities and responsibilities of the position. The report (GAO-19-199) is titled "Defense Business Operations: DOD Should Take Steps to Fully Institutionalize the Chief Management Officer Position".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on March 14. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has implemented its Chief Management Officer position and issued guidance to communicate within the department the authorities and responsibilities of the position. The report (GAO-19-199) is titled "Defense Business Operations: DOD Should Take Steps to Fully Institutionalize the Chief Management Officer Position". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on March 14. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to implement its Chief Management Officer (CMO) position which has been given the responsibility for managing DOD's business operations; however, unresolved issues remain for DOD to fully institutionalize the CMO's authorities and responsibilities. DOD has restructured the Office of the CMO (OCMO) to more closely align with the CMO's statutory authorities and responsibilities. Further, the OCMO is working to strengthen its data capabilities and has hired a Chief Data Officer and formed a Data Management and Analytics Steering Committee. Additionally, OCMO officials told us they are establishing cost baselines for each of DOD's major business functions.
However, DOD has not fully addressed three key issues related to the CMO's authorities and responsibilities:
* The CMO's authority to direct the military departments on business reform issues. The law gave the CMO authority to direct the secretaries of the military departments on matters over which the CMO has responsibility. However, DOD has not determined how the CMO will exercise this authority, particularly when there is disagreement between the departments and the CMO.
* The CMO's oversight responsibilities of the Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities (DAFAs). The CMO is responsible for exercising authority, direction, and control over the designated DAFAs that provide shared business services--those business functions, such as supply chain and logistics and human resources operations, that are provided across more than one DOD organization. However, DOD has not determined how the CMO will exercise this authority, such as which DAFAs will submit their proposed budgets for CMO review.
* Transfer of responsibilities from the Chief Information Officer to the CMO. Under the law, the CMO will exercise responsibilities relating to business systems and management that previously belonged to the Chief Information Officer. However, DOD has not determined which, if any, responsibilities will transition from the Chief Information Officer to the CMO or assessed the impact of such a transition on associated resources.
In part because these issues remain unresolved, DOD agreed that it does not have department-wide guidance that fully and clearly articulates how the CMO's authorities and responsibilities should be operationalized. Making determinations on the three unresolved issues and issuing guidance would help ensure a shared understanding throughout the department of the CMO's role in leading DOD's enterprise-wide business reform efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD spends billions of dollars each year to maintain key enterprise business operations intended to support the warfighter, including systems and processes related to the management of contracts, finances, the supply chain, and support infrastructure. The 2018 National Defense Strategy identified reform of DOD's business practices as one of DOD's three strategic goals. GAO has previously reported that weaknesses in these business operations have resulted in inefficiencies and billions of dollars wasted. GAO has also identified the need for a CMO with significant authority and experience to focus concerted attention on DOD's long-term business transformation efforts. Congress initially established such a position in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
This report evaluates the extent to which DOD has implemented its CMO position and issued guidance to communicate within the department the authorities and responsibilities of the position. GAO analyzed the statutory authorities and responsibilities assigned to the CMO position and evaluated DOD's actions to implement them."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOD should address each of the three unresolved issues that impede its progress in institutionalizing statutory authorities and responsibilities, and issue guidance, such as a chartering directive that addresses how the CMO's authorities should be operationalized. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-199?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Cybersecurity Workforce
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which federal agencies have assigned work roles for positions performing information technology, cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions. The report (GAO-19-144) is titled "Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Accurately Categorize Positions to Effectively Identify Critical Staffing Needs".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which federal agencies have assigned work roles for positions performing information technology, cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions. The report (GAO-19-144) is titled "Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Accurately Categorize Positions to Effectively Identify Critical Staffing Needs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen.Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, chairman, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman, and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The 24 reviewed federal agencies generally assigned work roles to filled and vacant positions that performed information technology (IT), cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions as required by the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015 (the act). However, six of the 24 agencies reported that they had not completed assigning the associated work role codes to their vacant positions, although they were required to do so by April 2018. In addition, most agencies had likely miscategorized the work roles of many positions. Specifically, 22 of the 24 agencies assigned a "non-IT" work role code to 15,779 (about 19 percent) of their IT positions within the 2210 occupational series. Further, the six agencies that GAO selected for additional review had assigned work role codes that were not consistent with the work roles and duties described in corresponding position descriptions for 63 of 120 positions within the 2210 occupational series that GAO examined (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
Human resource and IT officials from the 24 agencies generally reported that they had not completely or accurately categorized work roles for IT positions within the 2210 occupational series, in part, because they may have assigned the associated codes in error or had not completed validating the accuracy of the assigned codes. By assigning work roles that are inconsistent with the IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions, the agencies are diminishing the reliability of the information they need to improve workforce planning.
The act also required agencies to identify work roles of critical need by April 2019. To aid agencies with identifying their critical needs, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed guidance and required agencies to provide a preliminary report by August 2018. The 24 agencies have begun to identify critical needs and submitted a preliminary report to OPM that identified information systems security manager, IT project manager, and systems security analyst as the top three work roles of critical need. Nevertheless, until agencies accurately categorize their positions, their ability to effectively identify critical staffing needs will be impaired."
Why GAO Did This Study: "A key component of mitigating and responding to cyber threats is having a qualified, well-trained cybersecurity workforce. The act requires OPM and federal agencies to take several actions related to cybersecurity workforce planning. These actions include categorizing all IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions using OPM personnel codes for specific work roles, and identifying critical staffing needs.
The act contains a provision for GAO to analyze and monitor agencies' workforce planning. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which federal agencies have assigned work roles for positions performing IT, cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions and (2) describe the steps federal agencies took to identify work roles of critical need. GAO administered a questionnaire to 24 agencies, analyzed coding data from personnel systems, and examined preliminary reports on critical needs. GAO selected six of the 24 agencies based on cybersecurity spending levels to determine the accuracy of codes assigned to a random sample of IT positions. GAO also interviewed relevant OPM and agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 28 recommendations to 22 agencies to review and assign the appropriate codes to their IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related positions. Of the 22 agencies to which GAO made recommendations, 20 agreed with the recommendations, one partially agreed, and one did not agree with one of two recommendations. GAO continues to believe that all of the recommendations are warranted."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-144?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOE Contracting
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on contracting at the Department of Energy, including the use of subcontractors. The report (GAO-19-107) is titled "Department of Energy Contracting: Actions Needed to Strengthen Subcontract Oversight".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on contracting at the Department of Energy, including the use of subcontractors. The report (GAO-19-107) is titled "Department of Energy Contracting: Actions Needed to Strengthen Subcontract Oversight". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep.Fred Upton, R-Michigan, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair, and Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In fiscal year 2016, 28 entities participated in the Department of Energy's (DOE) and its National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 24 largest prime contracts, which totaled $23.6 billion of DOE's fiscal year 2016 obligations. The contractors awarded about $6.9 billion (nearly 30 percent) of those obligations to thousands of subcontractors. Further, multiple companies, universities, and other entities can join together to bid on a contract (i.e., become a "party to" a contract). GAO's review of data about these contracts and subcontracts identified complex ownership relationships among the contractors and subcontractors. For example, GAO found that almost all of the 28 parties to the prime contracts in its review were also subcontractors to some prime contracts, holding a total of nearly 3,000 subcontracts with fiscal year 2016 obligations totaling about $927 million (see figure). GAO found that it can be difficult to track changes in the ownership of parties to the contracts and to understand the relationships between parties.
(Figure Omitted)
DOE and NNSA did not always ensure that contractors audited subcontractors' incurred costs as required in their contracts. GAO's review of 43 incurred-cost assessment and audit reports identified more than $3.4 billion in subcontract costs incurred over a 10-year period that had not been audited as required, and some subcontracts remained unaudited or unassessed for more than 6 years. Completing audits in a timely manner is important because of a 6-year statute of limitations to recover unallowable costs that could be identified through such audits. DOE headquarters has not issued procedures or guidance that requires local offices to monitor contractors to ensure that required subcontract audits are completed in a timely manner, consistent with federal standards for internal control. Without such procedures or guidance, unallowable costs may go unidentified beyond the 6-year limitation period of the Contract Disputes Act, preventing DOE from recovering those costs.
DOE and NNSA perform several reviews to ensure that contractors meet other subcontract oversight requirements. For example, DOE's local offices review proposed subcontracts to ensure they are awarded consistent with policies related to potential conflicts of interest. However, local officials do not independently review information on subcontractor ownership because doing so is not required, although such information could alert officials to potential conflicts of interest. By requiring contracting officers to independently review subcontractor ownership information, DOE and NNSA would have better assurance that contractors are adequately identifying and mitigating organizational conflicts of interest."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOE, including NNSA, is the largest federal civilian contracting agency, spending about 90 percent of its appropriations on contracts with companies, universities, and others for federal research and development, engineering, and production. DOE headquarters and local offices oversee contractors' activities, including their management of subcontracts.
GAO was asked to review contracting at DOE, including the use of subcontractors. This report examines, for fiscal year 2016, (1) the parties that participated in DOE's largest prime contracts and the extent to which they subcontracted their work; (2) the extent to which DOE ensured that those contractors audited subcontractors' costs, as required; and (3) the extent to which DOE ensured that contractors met other subcontract oversight requirements. GAO reviewed DOE's fiscal year 2016 data and documents, analyzed regulations, and interviewed federal officials and contractor representatives for DOE's 24 largest fiscal year 2016 prime contracts."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOE develop procedures that require local offices to monitor contractors to ensure timely completion of required subcontract audits, and require local DOE officials to independently review subcontractor ownership information to identify potential conflicts of interest. DOE partially concurred with five of GAO's six recommendations but did not agree to independently review subcontractor ownership information. GAO maintains that the recommended actions are valid."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-107?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Foot-and-Mouth Disease
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Agriculture's efforts to prepare for an foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The report (GAO-19-103) is titled "Foot-and-Mouth Disease: USDA's Efforts to Prepare for a Potential Outbreak Could Be Strengthened".The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Agriculture's efforts to prepare for an foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The report (GAO-19-103) is titled "Foot-and-Mouth Disease: USDA's Efforts to Prepare for a Potential Outbreak Could Be Strengthened". The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associatedwith the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) planned approach for responding to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) includes several strategies. These strategies generally rely on killing infected and susceptible animals, vaccinating uninfected animals, or a combination of both approaches. USDA would implement one or more of the strategies, depending on factors such as the outbreak's size and the resources available, according to agency documents.
USDA would likely face significant challenges in pursuing its response goals of detecting, controlling, and containing FMD quickly; eradicating FMD while seeking to stabilize industry and the economy; and facilitating continuity of commerce in uninfected animals. GAO identified challenges in 11 areas--including allocating a limited supply of FMD vaccine--based on its review of USDA documents, responses to GAO's questionnaire, and interviews with agency officials and others with expertise on FMD. According to USDA, the agency may not have a sufficient supply of FMD vaccine to control more than a small outbreak because of limited resources to obtain vaccine. As shown below, the current vaccine supply would be sufficient to protect about 14 percent of Texas's cattle or about 4 percent of Iowa's swine; these states' cattle and swine populations are the nation's largest. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 includes a provision to increase the FMD vaccine supply.
(Figure Omitted)
USDA has identified dozens of corrective actions to mitigate the challenges of responding to an FMD outbreak, as called for in USDA procedures, but has not prioritized these corrective actions or monitored their completion, as also called for in its procedures. USDA has identified the corrective actions through exercises simulating FMD outbreaks, surveys, and lessons learned from other foreign animal disease outbreaks. However, USDA has not completed all of the corrective actions, including actions related to vaccination. Agency officials stated that they have not completed such corrective actions because they have been responding to outbreaks of other animal diseases and have limited resources. Without following agency procedures to prioritize and monitor corrective actions, USDA cannot ensure that it is allocating its resources to the most beneficial actions to prepare for a possible FMD outbreak."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that causes painful lesions on the hooves and mouths of some livestock, making it difficult for them to stand or eat, thus greatly reducing meat and milk production. The United States has not had an FMD outbreak since 1929, but FMD is present in much of the world. An FMD outbreak in the United States could have serious economic impacts, in part because trade partners would likely halt all imports of U.S. livestock and livestock products until the disease was eradicated. These imports were valued at more than $19 billion in 2017.
GAO was asked to review USDA's efforts to prepare for an FMD outbreak. This report examines (1) USDA's planned approach for responding to an FMD outbreak; (2) challenges USDA would face in pursuing its response goals; and (3) how USDA identifies, prioritizes, and monitors corrective actions to mitigate the challenges. GAO observed a USDA FMD preparedness exercise; reviewed agency documents and nongeneralizable questionnaire responses from 29 respondents from federal and state government, livestock industries, and universities; and interviewed officials from federal and state governments and representatives of livestock industries and universities."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is recommending that USDA follow its procedures to prioritize and monitor the completion of corrective actions that the agency has identified for FMD preparedness. USDA agreed with these recommendations, and described actions it will take to implement them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-103?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Oil, Gas Development
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas Inspection and Enforcement program. The report (GAO-19-7) is titled "Oil and Gas Development: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of the Inspection and Enforcement Program".The report was sent to Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Based on GAO's analysis of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) data, the distribution of BLM's oil and gas Inspection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas Inspection and Enforcement program. The report (GAO-19-7) is titled "Oil and Gas Development: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of the Inspection and Enforcement Program". The report was sent to Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Based on GAO's analysis of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) data, the distribution of BLM's oil and gas Inspectionand Enforcement program's workload and workforce showed an imbalance among BLM's 33 field offices in fiscal years 2012 through 2016. GAO analyzed BLM data on the overall percentage of the workload and workforce distributed at each field office (i.e., activity level) and grouped similar activity level field offices together into highest, medium and lowest activity categories. GAO found that the program distributed the majority of its workload to 6 highest activity offices and distributed the majority of the workforce to 21 medium activity offices (see fig.). Based on GAO's review of BLM documentation and interviews with agency officials, BLM took both short- and long-term actions in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 to address this imbalance, such as temporarily re-assigning inspectors from some medium activity offices to some of the highest activity offices.
(Figure Omitted)
BLM has not completed all required internal control reviews of its field offices. BLM's July 2012 oversight policy instructs its state offices to periodically conduct internal control reviews of field offices, which are to, among other things, identify staffing needs. BLM state offices completed internal control reviews at 6 of 33 field offices from 2013 through 2017, and 5 more are scheduled from 2018 through 2020. Officials from BLM state offices told GAO that some human capital and workload challenges hindered their ability to complete reviews, including long-term vacancies in some state offices positions. However, a senior BLM official said that headquarters did not consistently track and monitor the extent to which state offices completed field office internal control reviews, and headquarters officials said they were not aware that so few reviews had been completed. Under federal standards for internal control, management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such as by comparing actual performance to expected results and analyzing significant differences. Identifying the reasons it did not complete internal control reviews, developing and implementing a plan to address those challenges, and monitoring state offices' progress toward completing required reviews will better position BLM to ensure that its state offices are completing all required internal control reviews as called for by its July 2012 oversight policy."
Why GAO Did This Study: "BLM has primary responsibility for managing oil and gas development on federal and Indian lands. To help ensure operator compliance with laws and regulations, BLM administers the Inspection and Enforcement program. Under the program, BLM inspects operators' drilling, production, and plugging activities and can issue various enforcement actions, such as monetary assessments, for violations. GAO was asked to examine key aspects of the Inspection and Enforcement program.
This report (1) describes the distribution of BLM's oil and gas Inspection and Enforcement program's workload and workforce among agency field offices for the most recent 5 years for which such data were available (fiscal years 2012 through 2016) and (2) examines the extent to which BLM conducted internal control reviews in accordance with its July 2012 oversight policy for fiscal years 2013 through 2018, the most recent period for which such data were available. GAO examined BLM policies, data, and documents; interviewed BLM headquarters, state and field office officials; visited six BLM field offices selected based on their level of resource development activity; and toured oil and gas drilling, production, and plugging sites at three of these six field offices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to BLM, including taking actions to increase monitoring of state offices' progress toward completing internal control reviews. BLM concurred with all three recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-7?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on SBA Management of State Trade Expansion Program
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Small Business Administration's management of the State Trade Expansion Program. The report (GAO-19-276) is titled "Small Business Administration: Export Promotion Grant Program Should Better Ensure Compliance with Law and Help States Make Full Use of Funds".The report was sent to Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Small Business Administration's (SBA) management of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Small Business Administration's management of the State Trade Expansion Program. The report (GAO-19-276) is titled "Small Business Administration: Export Promotion Grant Program Should Better Ensure Compliance with Law and Help States Make Full Use of Funds". The report was sent to Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, on March 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Small Business Administration's (SBA) management of theState Trade Expansion Program (STEP) does not provide reasonable assurance of compliance with some legal requirements. Specifically, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) requirements for STEP include:
* Proportional distribution requirement. SBA's Office of International Trade (OIT) must distribute grant funds so that the total amount awarded to the 10 states with the highest percentage of eligible small businesses does not exceed 40 percent of the program's appropriation that year.
* Total match requirement. States must provide a 25 or 35 percent non-federal match to the federal grant amount.
* Cash match requirement. A state's match cannot be less than 50 percent cash.
GAO found that, while OIT has a process to meet the distribution requirement, it does not have a process for documenting that states have met the total match requirement before grant closeout, and does not have a process to determine whether states are meeting the cash match requirement. Without such processes, SBA cannot be reasonably assured that states are contributing per the law's requirements.
GAO found that, while OIT has made changes to STEP in response to states' feedback, officials from states with low grant use described ongoing challenges with the program that affect their ability to fully use funds. These challenges include compressed application and award timelines, administrative burden, and poor communication. SBA has not adequately assessed risks to the program, including the risk to achieving program goals posed by some states' low grant fund use rates. Without such an assessment, OIT's ability to support U.S. exporters may be diminished. Further, SBA has not effectively facilitated sharing best practices among states. By doing this, SBA could help states make full use of funds to achieve the program's goals."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Congress established STEP in 2010 to increase small business exports. Through STEP, SBA has awarded about $139 million in grants to state trade offices, which in turn facilitate small business export activities, including participation in trade missions and attendance at trade shows. Congress reauthorized STEP in 2016. GAO was asked to review SBA's management of the program.
This report examines the extent to which (1) SBA's STEP grants management process provides reasonable assurance of compliance with selected requirements of applicable law, and (2) SBA has taken steps to address challenges states report in using grant funds to achieve program goals. GAO reviewed the program's authorizing legislation and federal and agency guidance on grants management, analyzed SBA program data, and interviewed SBA officials. GAO also conducted semi-structured interviews with a non-generalizable sample of 12 of the 40 states that received STEP grants in fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which complete data were available. GAO selected these states on the basis of their low grant fund use rates."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is recommending that SBA develop processes to ensure compliance with legal grant matching fund requirements, take steps to assess risks to program goals from low grant fund use rates, and enhance the sharing of best practices among states receiving the grant. SBA concurred with all of the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-276?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Surface Transportation
WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Build America Bureau. The report (GAO-19-279) is titled "Surface Transportation: Action Needed to Guide Implementation of Build America Bureau and Improve Application Process".The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Sen. John Barrasso, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Build America Bureau. The report (GAO-19-279) is titled "Surface Transportation: Action Needed to Guide Implementation of Build America Bureau and Improve Application Process". The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Sen. John Barrasso,R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on March 11. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: The Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken initial steps to establish the Build America Bureau's (Bureau) organizational structure and to create a process to help the Bureau carry out some of its responsibilities since it was created in 2016. However, the Bureau lacks a plan to guide its ongoing and future efforts. Initial steps included creating a consolidated process to evaluate applications for three financing programs: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF), and Private Activity Bonds (PAB). DOT largely based this consolidated process on prior practices used for individual programs but also sought to improve and streamline the process. For example, DOT formed a decision-making body that meets more frequently than a predecessor group to quickly address issues and to decide when to advance projects through the process. However, progress has been more limited in implementing other responsibilities, such as promoting best practices for innovative financing. While some of the lack of progress can be attributed to factors such as changes in leadership and staff, the Bureau lacks a plan with implementation goals and a timeline to guide its ongoing and future efforts and also lacks performance indicators to assess its progress. Without these tools, the Bureau may face difficulties prioritizing work to carry out other responsibilities and maintaining momentum throughout continued implementation efforts and any future changes in leadership and staff.
While the Bureau has taken steps to improve and streamline the application evaluation process, it does not have a mechanism to assess how well the process works--including what is challenging and what works well. Project sponsors GAO interviewed had mixed views on the Bureau's application evaluation process and whether it was streamlined. Selected sponsors that applied for TIFIA and RRIF financing identified challenges with the process, including the length of the process and changes to requirements or terms for a loan. For example, sponsors said the Bureau took longer than it had estimated to procure external advisors to help conduct its evaluation of applications. According to the sponsors, such delays and uncertainty led to cost increases for two projects and construction delays for one project. Bureau officials noted that many factors outside the Bureau's control influence the length of the application evaluation process, such as changes to a project's scope and construction cost estimates. However, the Bureau has not taken steps, such as consistently soliciting feedback from sponsors, to assess how to further improve and streamline its process. Without taking such steps, the Bureau is missing an opportunity to further streamline the process and to ensure that any challenges do not discourage sponsors from seeking the Bureau's financing programs.
GAO found that the Bureau provided a clear rationale for decisions to advance or approve projects in the TIFIA and RRIF programs but did not do so for the PAB program. While DOT did document the decisions made in each step of the application evaluation process for the PAB program, the lack of a documented rationale to support these decisions leaves that program open to questions about the integrity of its process, as it is not immediately clear how the Bureau determined that an application satisfied requirements and what information was used to support decisions that advanced projects."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Constructing surface transportation projects can be long endeavors and involve multiple DOT offices. The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) required DOT to establish a finance bureau to consolidate certain funding and financing programs. The FAST Act further required that DOT improve procedures for evaluating applications for these programs--including providing a clear rationale for decisions and streamlining the process. The FAST Act also gave this finance bureau other responsibilities such as promoting best practices for innovative financing. In response, DOT opened the Build America Bureau in July 2016.
The FAST Act included a provision for GAO to review the Bureau. This report assesses, among other things, (1) progress DOT made to establish the Bureau and carry out its responsibilities, (2) the Bureau's process for evaluating applications, and (3) whether the Bureau provided a clear rationale for decisions in that process. GAO reviewed federal laws and Bureau documents and interviewed DOT officials and selected stakeholders, including 28 project sponsors selected so projects varied by mode, cost, and outcome."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that the Bureau develop a plan to guide its efforts and assess ways to further improve the application evaluation process. DOT concurred with two but did not fully concur with three of the recommendations and provided no rationale. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-279?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Whistleblower Protection
WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the integrity of the Department of Defense's whistleblower program. The report (GAO-19-198) is titled "Whistleblower Protection: Analysis of DOD's Actions to Improve Case Timeliness and Safeguard Confidentiality".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 7. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the integrity of the Department of Defense's whistleblower program. The report (GAO-19-198) is titled "Whistleblower Protection: Analysis of DOD's Actions to Improve Case Timeliness and Safeguard Confidentiality". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 7. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DODIG) and military service offices of inspector general (IG) met some but not all fiscal year 2018 timeliness and quality goals for handling whistleblower complaints. For example, DODIG met its goals related to referring complaints to the appropriate agency within a certain number of days. All IGs also generally met goals related to the quality of investigations. However, about 85 percent of DODIG reprisal and senior official misconduct investigations exceeded statutory and internal timeliness goals. Further, military service IGs did not meet most goals for handling cases within prescribed timeframes. For example, the service IGs averaged between 17 and 84 days to notify DODIG of their receipt of whistleblower reprisal allegations, exceeding the 10-day goal. The IGs have various initiatives underway to improve timeliness, such as a Naval IG program to reduce timeframes for initial credibility determinations. However, additional actions could provide a more targeted approach to improving performance against unmet timeliness goals--such as for senior official misconduct investigations--and better assure whistleblowers that their cases will be handled expeditiously.
DODIG and the military service IGs have policies to protect whistleblower confidentiality, but some gaps exist. For example, DODIG guidance for protecting whistleblowers who report internal DODIG misconduct does not specify key steps investigators should take to protect confidentiality, such as not identifying complainants during interviews with case subjects. Also, Air Force, Naval, and Marine Corps IG guidance does not specify when whistleblower identities can be disclosed without consent. Without updated guidance, the IGs cannot ensure the consistent implementation of confidentiality protections.
The IGs have taken steps to safeguard whistleblower information in their information technology (IT) systems and applications, such as by restricting access to case information through unique user permissions and by taking actions to follow DOD's IT risk management process. However, between 2016 and 2018, employees in all of the IGs have been able to access sensitive whistleblower information without a need to know. For example, DODIG determined that numerous restricted whistleblower records in its document repository were accessible to DODIG personnel without a need to know. Similarly, the Air Force IG's application did not restrict users from other DOD components from viewing Air Force IG case descriptions and complainant identities, while the Army IG's application and the Naval IG's system did not restrict personnel within those IGs from viewing allegations or investigations involving other personnel within those IGs. Additionally, employees in Marine Corps IG offices were able to see whistleblower cases assigned to other IG offices without a need to know. While some actions have been taken to address these issues, additional steps are needed to restrict access to case information in order to mitigate ongoing risks to whistleblower confidentiality.
DODIG generally met key documentation requirements for the 125 cases it dismissed without investigation involving civilian DOD Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Safeguarding confidentiality to the maximum extent possible is essential for encouraging whistleblowers to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. In fiscal year 2018, DODIG received over 12,000 contacts from potential whistleblowers related to fraud, waste, abuse, employee misconduct, or other violations. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review the integrity of DOD's whistleblower program. This report assesses the extent to which DODIG and the military service IGs (1) met and took steps to achieve key fiscal year 2018 timeliness and quality goals, (2) established processes to protect whistleblower confidentiality, and (3) are able to safeguard sensitive information necessary to handle whistleblower complaints. It also evaluates (4) the extent to which select cases involving certain senior DOD civilian officials met key requirements.
GAO assessed fiscal year 2018 IG performance data, surveyed all 108 DODIG employees who directly handle whistleblower complaints, reviewed IT security controls, and analyzed all 125 cases involving civilian DOD Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation dismissed by DODIG in fiscal years 2013-2017."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 12 recommendations, including that the IGs take additional actions to improve timeliness, develop additional procedures to protect whistleblower confidentiality, and take steps to further limit IG employee access to sensitive whistleblower information. DOD concurred with all of the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-198?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Manufacturing Extension Partnership
WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers' views regarding the extent to which the recent cost share adjustment has helped them serve manufacturers. The report (GAO-19-219) is titled "Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Centers Cite Benefits from Funding Change, but Impacts Hard to Distinguish from Other Factors".The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Eddie ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers' views regarding the extent to which the recent cost share adjustment has helped them serve manufacturers. The report (GAO-19-219) is titled "Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Centers Cite Benefits from Funding Change, but Impacts Hard to Distinguish from Other Factors". The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. EddieBernice Johnson, D-Texas, chairman, and Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Oklahoma, ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Most Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) centers reported that the January 2017 American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA) cost share adjustment has helped them serve manufacturers, especially very small (i.e., less than 20 employees) and rural ones. The AICA adjusted the cost share ratio to remain at 1:1, that is, $1 of nonfederal contributions for each $1 of federal assistance. Before the adjustment, MEP centers' cost share requirement increased over the course of their cooperative agreements from 1:1 to 2:1, requiring centers to obtain a greater proportion of revenue from nonfederal sources. In GAO's survey of all 51 MEP centers, 44 centers cited positive effects of the adjustment on center operations, such as helping to improve center services or better reach underserved manufacturers. Also, 41 centers indicated the adjustment increased their financial stability, which some centers stated has allowed them to focus less on revenue generation and to serve very small and rural manufacturers. However, some MEP center officials observed that the AICA cost share adjustment impact is hard to distinguish from other factors, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) recompetition of nearly all centers' cooperative agreements between fiscal years 2014 and 2017. The recompetition increased the level of federal financial assistance for most centers and reset many centers' cost share ratio from 2:1 to 1:1 prior to the 2017 adjustment. Still, center officials said that if the cost share requirement reverted to what it was prior to the 2017 adjustment, centers would be less able to serve manufacturers, particularly very small and rural ones.
NIST data show that there have been some changes in MEP centers' finances and activities since the AICA cost share adjustment; however, these changes generally began prior to the adjustment. For example, NIST data on centers' finances show an increase in federal assistance and a decrease in reported nonfederal contributions from fiscal year 2017 to 2018, but these changes generally began around fiscal year 2014, when NIST began the recompetition process. Similarly, NIST data on centers' activities show an overall increase in the numbers of very small and rural manufacturers served from fiscal year 2017 to 2018. While the change in the number of very small manufacturers served began around fiscal year 2014, the number of rural manufacturers served fluctuated from fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Like MEP center officials, NIST officials said the impact of the AICA cost share adjustment is intertwined with the recompetition impacts and, going forward, the AICA adjustment may help sustain recent increases in the number of very small and rural manufacturers served."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Small and medium-sized manufacturers are an important part of the U.S. economy. In 1988, to enhance the competitiveness, productivity, and technological performance of U.S. manufacturing, NIST established what is now called the MEP program. The program supports manufacturers through services provided by MEP centers. The centers, located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, are operated by nonfederal organizations. The MEP centers provide assistance, either directly or through third parties, to help improve manufacturing firms' processes and productivity; expand their capacity; and help them adopt new technologies, utilize best management practices, and accelerate company growth. NIST enters into a cooperative agreement with the nonfederal organization that runs each center to provide federal financial assistance conditional upon the center contributing nonfederal matching funds--known as a cost share.
The AICA included a provision for GAO to review the effect of the 2017 cost share adjustment. This report describes (1) the MEP centers' views regarding the extent to which the recent cost share adjustment has helped them serve manufacturers and (2) the extent to which NIST data show impacts of the cost share adjustment on centers' finances and activities. GAO surveyed all 51 MEP centers, analyzed NIST data on the MEP program, and interviewed NIST and MEP center officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-219?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Fees, Fines, Penalties
WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines and penalties. The report (GAO-19-221) is titled "Fees, Fines, and Penalties: Better Reporting of Government-wide Data Would Increase Transparency and Facilitate Oversight".The report was sent to Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "There are no comprehensive, government-wide ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines and penalties. The report (GAO-19-221) is titled "Fees, Fines, and Penalties: Better Reporting of Government-wide Data Would Increase Transparency and Facilitate Oversight". The report was sent to Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "There are no comprehensive, government-widedata at the level of detail that identifies specific fees, fines, or penalties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) report data that include these collections at the budget account level, which generally covers a set of agency activities or programs. OMB and Treasury also report some summary data for budgeting and financial management purposes. In the Budget of the U.S. Government , for example, OMB data showed government-wide fees totaled just over $335 billion in fiscal year 2017. These reports, however, are not designed to inventory or analyze fee, fine, or penalty collections and have significant limitations for that purpose.
Although OMB collects more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties, it does not make the data publicly available. OMB uses the disaggregated data in its OMB MAX database--such as the agency and account--to compile reported totals, such as the government-wide fees total in the Budget of the U.S. Government . Until OMB makes more disaggregated data publicly available, Congress has limited information on collections by agency to inform oversight and decision-making.
OMB's government-wide total of fees includes collections that are not fees and excludes some fee collections. The total includes all collections for accounts in which fees make up at least half of the account's collections and excludes all others. OMB does not direct agencies to regularly review and update the accounts included in the total. Therefore, if accounts' makeups change such that fee collections drop below, or rise above, the 50 percent threshold, accounts may have incorrect fee designations and the total may be inaccurate.
Further, OMB does not disclose the limitation that the total may exclude some fees and include other collections that are not fees. As a result, some users of the data are likely unaware of the potential for the total fees to be overestimated or underestimated.
Further, no source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight. Generally, congressional staff told us that additional data, such as amounts of specific penalties, would increase transparency and facilitate oversight. These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency's performance. While reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data provides benefits, there are trade-offs in terms of the time and federal resources it would take to develop and implement a process for agencies to report these data. The level of federal investment would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements included and the level of detail reported. Developing a comprehensive and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would likely be resource intensive. Alternatively, incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Congress has authorized federal agencies to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties. These collections can fund a variety of programs, including programs related to national security, and the protection of natural resources. Data on collections are important for congressional oversight and to provide transparency in agencies' use of federal resources.
GAO was asked to review the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties. This report examines (1) the extent to which data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publically available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight; and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties. GAO assessed government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data against criteria for availability and usefulness based on multiple sources, including prior GAO work and input from staff of selected congressional committees. GAO interviewed OMB staff, Treasury officials, and representatives of organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and reviewed prior GAO work to identify benefits and challenges of reporting these data."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to enhance OMB reporting on fees, fines, and penalties, including making disaggregated data publically available, updating instructions to federal agencies to review accounts designated as containing fees, and disclosing limitations in data reported. OMB did not provide comments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-221?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Automated Trucking
WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the potential workforce effects of automated trucking. The report (GAO-19-161) is titled "Automated Trucking: Federal Agencies Should Take Additional Steps to Prepare for Potential Workforce Effects".The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Automated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the potential workforce effects of automated trucking. The report (GAO-19-161) is titled "Automated Trucking: Federal Agencies Should Take Additional Steps to Prepare for Potential Workforce Effects". The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, on March 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Automatedtrucks, including self-driving trucks, are being developed for long-haul trucking operations, but widespread commercial deployment is likely years or decades away, according to stakeholders. Most technology developers said they were developing trucks that can travel without drivers for part of a route, and some stakeholders said such trucks may become available within 5 to 10 years. Various technologies, including sensors and cameras, could help guide a truck capable of driving itself (see figure). However, the adoption of this technology depends on factors such as technological limitations and public acceptance.
(Figure Omitted)
Stakeholders GAO interviewed predicted two main scenarios for how the adoption of automated trucks could affect the trucking workforce, which varied depending on the future role of drivers or operators. Technology developers, among others, described one scenario in which self-driving trucks are used on highway portions of long-haul trips. Stakeholders noted this scenario would likely reduce the number of long-haul truck drivers needed and could decrease wages because of lower demand for such drivers. In contrast, groups representing truck drivers, among others, predicted a scenario in which a truck would have an operator at all times for complex driving and other non-driving tasks, and the number of drivers or operators would not change as significantly. However, stakeholders lacked consensus on the potential effect this scenario might have on wages and driver retention. Most stakeholders said automated trucking could create new jobs, and that any workforce effects would take time--providing an opportunity for a federal response, such as any needed policy changes.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is consulting with the Department of Labor (DOL) to conduct a congressionally-directed analysis of the workforce impacts of automated trucking by March 2019. As part of this analysis, DOT and DOL have coordinated to conduct stakeholder outreach. However, they do not currently plan to convene stakeholders on a regular basis to gather information because they have focused on completing this analysis first. Continuing to convene stakeholders could provide the agencies foresight about policy changes that may be needed to prepare for any workforce effects as this technology evolves."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Automated vehicle technology may eventually make commercial trucking more efficient and safer, but also has the potential to change the employment landscape for nearly 1.9 million heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers, among others. GAO was asked to examine the potential workforce effects of automated trucking.
This report addresses (1) what is known about how and when automated vehicle technologies could affect commercial trucks; (2) what is known about how the adoption of automated trucks could affect the commercial trucking workforce; and (3) the extent to which DOT and DOL are preparing to assist drivers whose jobs may be affected. GAO reviewed research since 2014 on automated trucking technology, viewed demonstrations of this technology, and analyzed federal data on the truck driver workforce. GAO also interviewed officials from DOT and DOL, as well as a range of stakeholders, including technology developers, companies operating their own trucking fleets, truck driver training schools, truck driver associations, and workforce development boards."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that both DOT and DOL should continue to convene key stakeholders as the automated trucking technology evolves to help the agencies analyze and respond to potential workforce changes that may result. DOT and DOL agreed with the recommendations."''
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-161?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on High-Risk Series
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of high-risk areas, outlines actions that are still needed to assure further progress. The report (GAO-19-157SP) is titled "High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of high-risk areas, outlines actions that are still needed to assure further progress. The report (GAO-19-157SP) is titled "High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversightand Government Reform Committee, on March 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The ratings for more than half of the 35 areas on the 2019 High-Risk List remain largely unchanged. Since GAO's last update in 2017, seven areas improved, three regressed, and two showed mixed progress by improving in some criteria but declining in others. Where there has been improvement in high-risk areas, congressional actions have been critical in spurring progress in addition to actions by executive agencies.
GAO is removing two of the seven areas with improved ratings from the High-Risk List because they met all of GAO's five criteria for removal. The first area, Department of Defense (DOD) Supply Chain Management, made progress on seven actions and outcomes related to monitoring and demonstrated progress that GAO recommended for improving supply chain management. For example, DOD improved the visibility of physical inventories, receipt processing, cargo tracking, and unit moves. Improvements in asset visibility have saved millions of dollars and allow DOD to better meet mission needs by providing assets where and when needed.
The second area, Mitigating Gaps in Weather Satellite Data, made significant progress in establishing and implementing plans to mitigate potential gaps. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration successfully launched a satellite, now called NOAA-20, in November 2017. NOAA-20 is operational and provides advanced weather data and forecasts. DOD developed plans and has taken actions to address gaps in weather data through its plans to launch the Weather System Follow-on-Microwave satellite in 2022.
There are two new areas on the High-Risk List since 2017. Added in 2018 outside of GAO's biennial high-risk update cycle, the Government-Wide Personnel Security Clearance Process faces significant challenges related to processing clearances in a timely fashion, measuring investigation quality, and ensuring information technology security. The second area, added in 2019, is Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Acquisition Management. VA has one of the most significant acquisition functions in the federal government, both in obligations and number of contract actions. GAO identified seven contracting challenges for VA, such as outdated acquisition regulations and policies, lack of an effective medical supplies procurement strategy, and inadequate acquisition training.
Overall, 24 high-risk areas have either met or partially met all five criteria for removal from the list; 20 of these areas fully met at least one criterion. Ten high-risk areas have neither met nor partially met one or more criteria.
While progress is needed across all high-risk areas, GAO has identified nine that need especially focused executive and congressional attention, including Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation, Resolving the Federal Role in Housing Finance, addressing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Insurance Programs, Managing Risks and Improving VA Health Care, and ensuring an effective 2020 Decennial Census. Beyond these specific areas, focused attention is needed to address mission-critical skills gaps in 16 high-risk areas, confront three high-risk areas concerning health care and tax law enforcement that include billions of dollars in improper payments each year, and focus on a yawning tax gap."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government is one of the world's largest and most complex entities; about $4.1 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2018 funded a broad array of programs and operations. GAO's high-risk program identifies government operations with vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.
This biennial update describes the status of high-risk areas, outlines actions that are still needed to assure further progress, and identifies two new high-risk areas needing attention by the executive branch and Congress. Solutions to high-risk problems save billions of dollars, improve service to the public, and would strengthen government performance and accountability.
GAO uses five criteria to assess progress in addressing high-risk areas: (1) leadership commitment, (2) agency capacity, (3) an action plan, (4) monitoring efforts, and (5) demonstrated progress."
What GAO Recommends: "This report describes GAO's views on progress made and what remains to be done to bring about lasting solutions for each high-risk area. Substantial efforts are needed by the executive branch to achieve progress on high-risk areas. Addressing GAO's hundreds of open recommendations across the high-risk areas and continued congressional oversight and action are essential to achieving greater progress."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-157SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Training
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's current and planned state of cyber training. The report (GAO-19-362) is titled "DOD Training: U.S. Cyber Command and Services Should Take Actions to Maintain a Trained Cyber Mission Force".The report was sent to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) has taken a number of steps--such ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's current and planned state of cyber training. The report (GAO-19-362) is titled "DOD Training: U.S. Cyber Command and Services Should Take Actions to Maintain a Trained Cyber Mission Force". The report was sent to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on March 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) has taken a number of steps--suchas establishing consistent training standards--to develop its Cyber Mission Force (CMF) teams (see figure). To train CMF teams rapidly, CYBERCOM used existing resources where possible, such as the Navy's Joint Cyber Analysis Course and the National Security Agency's National Cryptologic School. As of November 2018, many of the 133 CMF teams that initially reported achieving full operational capability no longer had the full complement of trained personnel, and therefore did not meet CYBERCOM's readiness standards. This was caused by a number of factors, but CYBERCOM has since implemented new readiness procedures that emphasize readiness rather than achieving interim milestones, such as full operational capability.
(Figure Omitted)
DOD has begun to shift focus from building to maintaining a trained CMF. The department developed a transition plan for the CMF that transfers foundational (phase two) training responsibility to the services. However, the Army and Air Force do not have time frames for required validation of foundational courses to CYBERCOM standards. Further, services' plans do not include all CMF training requirements, such as the numbers of personnel that need to be trained. Also, CYBERCOM does not have a plan to establish required independent assessors to ensure the consistency of collective (phase three) CMF training.
Between 2013 and 2018, CMF personnel made approximately 700 requests for exemptions from training based on their experience, and about 85 percent of those applicants had at least one course exemption approved. However, GAO found that CYBERCOM has not established training task lists for foundational training courses. The services need these task lists to prepare appropriate course equivalency standards."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Developing a skilled cyber workforce is imperative to DOD achieving its offensive and defensive missions, and in 2013 it began developing CMF teams to fulfill these missions. CYBERCOM announced that the first wave of 133 such teams achieved full operational capability in May 2018. House Report 115-200 includes a provision for GAO to assess DOD's current and planned state of cyber training.
GAO's report examines the extent to which DOD has (1) developed a trained CMF, (2) made plans to maintain a trained CMF, and (3) leveraged other cyber experience to meet training requirements for CMF personnel. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed DOD's cyber training standards, planning documents, and reports on CMF training; and interviewed DOD officials. This is an unclassified version of a For Official Use Only report that GAO previously issued."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making eight recommendations, including that the Army and Air Force identify time frames for validating foundational CMF courses; the military services develop CMF training plans with specific personnel requirements; CYBERCOM develop and document a plan establishing independent assessors to evaluate training; and CYBERCOM establish the training tasks covered by foundational training courses and convey them to the services. DOD concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-362?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Department of State's Foreign Service Staffing
WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of State's Foreign Service staffing. The report (GAO-19-220) is titled "Department of State: Integrated Action Plan Could Enhance Efforts to Reduce Persistent Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies".The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, on March 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of State's (State) data show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts since 2008. According to the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of State's Foreign Service staffing. The report (GAO-19-220) is titled "Department of State: Integrated Action Plan Could Enhance Efforts to Reduce Persistent Overseas Foreign Service Vacancies". The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, on March 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of State's (State) data show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts since 2008. According to thedata, 13 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of March 2018. This percentage is similar to the percentages GAO reported for 2008 and 2012, when 14 percent of these positions were vacant. In addition, State's data show persistent vacancies at overseas posts in generalist positions that help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and in specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. State's data also show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts with State's highest foreign policy priorities and in regions with security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests.
According to staff at overseas posts, Foreign Service vacancies adversely affect State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Staff at overseas posts told us that vacancies increase workloads, contributing to low morale and higher stress for Foreign Service staff and that vacancies in Political and Economic positions--20 percent and 16 percent, respectively--limit the reporting on political and economic issues that posts are able to provide to State headquarters. Notably, officials also stated that vacancies in specialist positions may heighten security risks at overseas posts and disrupt post operations. For instance, some overseas post staff said that vacancies in Information Management positions had increased the vulnerability of posts' computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats.
State described various efforts--implemented by multiple offices in the department --to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies, but these efforts are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. An example of State's efforts is the "Hard-to-Fill" program, which allows Civil Service staff an opportunity to fill a Foreign Service vacancy on a single overseas tour. According to GAO's 2017 High-Risk Series report, an agency should design and implement an action plan--integrated across its relevant offices--that defines the root causes of all skills gaps and suggests corrective measures. However, State has not developed such an action plan for reducing persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Without developing an integrated action plan, overseas Foreign Service vacancies may persist. As a result, State's ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals and help ensure secure and efficient operations could be adversely impacted."
Why GAO Did This Study: "State staffs Foreign Service employees to more than 270 embassies and consulates worldwide to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. In 2009 and 2012, GAO identified ongoing Foreign Service staffing gaps.
GAO was asked to review State's Foreign Service staffing. This report examines (1) vacancies in State's Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State's efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed State's Global Employment Management System data as of March 2018. The system includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, including the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions and whether each position is filled or vacant. GAO also reviewed its relevant prior reports and State workforce planning documents. In addition, GAO interviewed State staff at 10 overseas posts, selected on the basis of large numbers of Foreign Service vacancies and diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant at these posts, among other factors."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies. State concurred with our recommendation and noted that it will take steps to develop an integrated action plan."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-220?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Economic Adjustment Assistance
WASHINGTON, March 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal programs specifically targeted toward helping individuals, businesses and communities adjust to economic disruptions that reduce the demand for certain workers. The report (GAO-19-85R) is titled "Economic Adjustment Assistance: Federal Programs Intended to Help Beneficiaries Adjust to Economic Disruption".The report was sent to Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal programs specifically targeted toward helping individuals, businesses and communities adjust to economic disruptions that reduce the demand for certain workers. The report (GAO-19-85R) is titled "Economic Adjustment Assistance: Federal Programs Intended to Help Beneficiaries Adjust to Economic Disruption". The report was sent to Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WestVirginia, on March 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO identified 15 programs and 1 tax expenditure that met its definition of economic adjustment assistance (EAA), which was developed in consultation with relevant federal agencies and regional commissions. These programs and tax expenditure are administered by one of the following six agencies or commissions: The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (Commerce), Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), and the Treasury (Treasury). Programs differed in size. For example, according to agency officials, in fiscal year 2017 a DOL program provided about $974 million in grants to states to assist workers who had lost their jobs become reemployed; whereas a DOD program dispersed about $354,000 for grants designed to conduct research and provide technical assistance to communities affected by defense-related activities.
The EAA programs and tax expenditure GAO identified are:
* USDA's Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, which provides funds to help certain cotton users make capital investments in land and equipment to help the U.S. textile industry remain competitive by limiting market losses, plant closures, and declines in employment.
* ARC's Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization Initiative, which is intended to help communities affected by job losses in coal mining, coal power plant operations, and coal-related supply chain industries due to the changing economics of energy production.
* Commerce's programs are designed to assist communities experiencing adverse economic changes and businesses affected by trade through its Assistance to Coal Communities, Economic Adjustment Assistance, and Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms programs.
* DOD has five programs that work with communities facing potential economic impact due to changes within DOD or the defense industry. These changes can include base closures or realignments as well as budget cuts and layoffs that may accompany changes in defense programs, such as the cancellation of a DOD contract or weapon system program.
* DOL's programs are intended to help dislocated workers, including those affected by trade or layoffs. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Dislocated Worker Formula Program is designed to help dislocated workers become reemployed by providing job search assistance, career services, and/or training. The National Dislocated Worker Grant Program temporarily expands service capacity at the state and local levels in response to significant dislocation events that cannot be accommodated within the operations of the formula-funded dislocated worker program. It also funds demonstration projects and provides state and local staff with training and technical assistance. The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers program is intended to help workers adversely affected by trade with opportunities to obtain the skills and support necessary to return to the workforce in an in-demand industry. The TAA Community College and Career Training program is aimed at helping community colleges increase their capacity to provide education and training programs for in-demand jobs. Finally, Health Coverage Tax Credit Infrastructure National Dislocated Worker Grants provides funding to state workforce agencies to provide health insurance coverage assistance and support related services to eligible trade-affected workers.
* Treasury is responsible for administering the Tax Credit for Health Insurance Purchased by Certain Displaced and Retired Individuals (also known as the Health Coverage Tax Credit), a tax expenditure that reduces the after-tax cost of health insurance for individuals who lose their jobs due to trade."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Individuals, businesses, and communities in the United States have had to change how they work or operate because their jobs or economies have been affected by external forces, such as trade agreements or defense or energy policies. GAO was asked to assess the federal programs specifically targeted toward helping individuals, businesses, and communities adjust to economic disruptions that reduce the demand for certain workers, commonly referred to as programs that provide EAA. The federal government provides EAA through programs and tax expenditures. Developing an inventory of EAA programs is the first step in assessing the scope of the federal government's involvement in this area, as well as determining whether these programs are effective, efficient, and able to meet current and future needs.
This report describes the GAO-identified federal programs and tax expenditure that support economic adjustment, including their objectives, eligibility requirements, beneficiaries, obligations, and expenditures. For the purposes of this report, GAO (1) developed criteria, in consultation with relevant agencies and commissions, for including programs and tax expenditures by identifying the characteristics closely associated with EAA, (2) identified programs and tax expenditures that met the criteria by interviewing agency officials and searching the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and relevant tax expenditure documents, and (3) surveyed relevant agencies asking them to confirm or provide program or tax expenditure information.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-85R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Nuclear Waste Cleanup
WASHINGTON, March 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how Office of Environmental Management manages its cleanup work. The report (GAO-19-223) is titled "Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how Office of Environmental Management manages its cleanup work. The report (GAO-19-223) is titled "Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommitteeon Energy, Rep. Paul Tonko, D-New York, chairman, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Illinois, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on Feb. 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) manages most of its cleanup of nuclear waste (77 percent of its fiscal year 2019 budget) under a category that EM refers to as operations activities, using less stringent requirements than a category of work, known as capital asset projects. (See figure) Capital asset projects--which involve the acquisition of land and other assets, including through environmental remediation--must undergo a series of reviews by independent experts and DOE's senior leadership. In contrast, operations activities are not reviewed outside of EM. EM's policy defines operations activities as reoccurring facility or environmental operations, as well as activities that are project-like, with defined start and end dates. EM cleanup site managers have discretion on how to classify cleanup work because DOE and EM have not established classification requirements. Since 2015, experts in DOE's Office of Project Management have raised concerns that some operations activities should be classified as capital asset projects, and that managing them under less stringent requirements poses cost and schedule risks. For example, the experts stated the cleanup of tanks of radioactive liquid waste should be designated as capital asset projects. However, these experts also stated that EM did not respond to their concerns, even though the office has department-wide responsibilities for overseeing project management. Until EM works with DOE's Office of Project Management to establish requirements for classifying cleanup work, the department may incur more cost and schedule risks than it should.
(Figure Omitted)
EM's cleanup policy does not follow any of 9 selected program management leading practices or 9 of 12 selected project management leading practices. For example, EM's 2017 cleanup policy does not follow the program management leading practice of conducting risk management throughout the life of a program or the project management leading practice of requiring independent reviews of operations activities. These leading practices help ensure that a program optimizes scope, cost, and schedule performance and that it achieves its goals and intended benefits. Until EM revises its cleanup policy to follow leading practices, EM's operations activities are at risk of uncontrolled changes to scope, exceeding initial budget and schedule, and failing to meet their original goals."
Why GAO Did This Study: "EM's mission is to complete the cleanup of nuclear waste at 16 DOE sites and to work to reduce risks and costs within its established regulatory framework. In December 2018, DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs--a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years.
GAO was asked to examine EM's operations activities. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) how EM manages its cleanup work and (2) the extent to which EM's cleanup policy follows selected leading practices for program and project management.
To do this work, GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed DOE project management experts and EM officials. GAO compared EM's policy with selected leading practices endorsed by the Project Management Institute for program and project management related to scope, cost, schedule, and independent review."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that EM (1) establish cleanup work classification requirements and (2) revise its cleanup policy to follow program and project management leading practices. DOE generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-223?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Chemical Assessments
WASHINGTON, March 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated progress implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act. The report (GAO-19-270) is titled "Chemical Assessments: Status of EPA's Efforts to Produce Assessments and Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act".The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on March 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Environmental Protection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated progress implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act. The report (GAO-19-270) is titled "Chemical Assessments: Status of EPA's Efforts to Produce Assessments and Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act". The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on March 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program, which prepares human health toxicity assessments of chemicals, has made progress addressing historical timeliness and transparency challenges in the assessment process. Efforts to address timeliness include employing project management principles and specialized software to better plan assessments and utilize staff. To address the need for greater transparency in how the program conducts assessments, IRIS officials and the IRIS Program have implemented systematic review, which provides a structured and transparent process for identifying relevant studies, reviewing their methodological strengths and weaknesses, and integrating these studies as part of a weight of evidence analysis.
Since the process improvements were implemented, the program made progress toward producing chemical assessments through May 2018. In June 2018, the EPA Administrator's office told IRIS officials that they could not release any IRIS-associated documentation without a formal request from EPA program office leadership. In August 2018, according to IRIS officials, program office leadership was asked to reconfirm which ongoing chemical assessments their offices needed. In late October 2018, these offices were asked to limit their chemical requests further, to the top three or four assessments. At the same time--4 months after IRIS assessments were stopped from being released--28 of approximately 30 IRIS staff were directed to support implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), as amended, with 25 to 50 percent of their time, according to officials. Then on December 19, 2018, the Office of Research and Development released its IRIS Program Outlook, which provided an updated list of 13 assessments. Eleven of the 13 chemicals on the IRIS Program Outlook were requested by two EPA program offices. A memorandum issued earlier in December, gave no indication of when additional assessments could be requested or what the IRIS Program's workflow would be in the near term.
EPA has demonstrated progress implementing TSCA, which was amended in June 2016, by responding to statutory deadlines. For example, EPA finalized rules detailing the general processes for prioritizing and evaluating chemicals, known as the Framework Rules, but three of the four rules have been challenged in court. Environmental organizations have argued, among other things, that TSCA requires EPA to consider all conditions of use in prioritizing and evaluating chemicals, rather than excluding, for example, uses that EPA believes are "legacy uses," for which a chemical is no longer marketed. EPA argued that TSCA grants it discretion to determine what constitutes a chemical's conditions of use. Amendments to TSCA in 2016 increased EPA's responsibility for regulating chemicals and in turn, its workload. As such, EPA is required to prioritize and evaluate existing chemicals by various deadlines over an extended period and to make a regulatory determination on all new chemicals. Senior management told GAO that they were confident that ongoing hiring and reorganization would better position the office that implements TSCA."
Why GAO Did This Study: "EPA is responsible for reviewing chemicals in commerce and those entering the marketplace. Currently there are more than 40,000 active chemical substances in commerce, with more submitted to EPA for review annually. EPA's IRIS database contains the agency's scientific position on the potential human health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. EPA's IRIS Program, which produces toxicity assessments, has been criticized in the past for timeliness and transparency issues. In response, the IRIS Program committed to making program improvements starting in 2011, which the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently commended. TSCA as amended in 2016 provides EPA with additional authority to review both existing and new chemicals and to regulate those that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.
This report describes (1) the extent to which the IRIS Program has addressed identified challenges and made progress toward producing chemical assessments; and (2) the extent to which EPA has demonstrated progress implementing TSCA. GAO reviewed NAS and EPA documents and interviewed officials from EPA and representatives from two environmental and two industry stakeholder organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO made recommendations previously to improve the IRIS Program and TSCA implementation. EPA provided comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-270?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Firearms Export Controls
WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the proposed changes to export controls of firearms, artillery and ammunition. The report (GAO-19-307) is titled "Export Controls: State and Commerce Should Share Watch List Information If Proposed Rules to Transfer Firearms Are Finalized".The report was sent to Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the proposed changes to export controls of firearms, artillery and ammunition. The report (GAO-19-307) is titled "Export Controls: State and Commerce Should Share Watch List Information If Proposed Rules to Transfer Firearms Are Finalized". The report was sent to Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut,Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, on March 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of State (State) reviewed approximately 69,000 commercial export license applications for firearms, artillery, and ammunition valued at up to $45.4 billion during fiscal years 2013 to 2017. About two-thirds of these applications were for firearms, and the majority involved the export of non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which are among the items proposed for transfer from State to Department of Commerce (Commerce) control.
GAO identified several differences in Commerce's and State's export controls including those related to registration, licensing, end-use monitoring, and congressional notification that, according to the agencies, would apply to firearms, artillery, and ammunition proposed for transfer. Some of these differences are due to varying requirements in applicable laws and regulations. For example, the law requires manufacturers, exporters, and brokers to register with State for items controlled by State but not for items controlled by Commerce. Additionally, while Commerce and State both screen parties to licenses against relevant watch lists, Commerce officials said they do not have direct access to State's internal watch list, which contains derogatory information from past screening of licenses for firearms, artillery, and ammunition exports. State and Commerce officials stated that, while they have held some discussions, they have not established a process for sharing watch list information. Without access to State's watch list, Commerce may lack critical information to effectively screen parties to exports of firearms and related items. State and Commerce also both have end-use monitoring programs to confirm the legitimacy of end-users but some differences exist. For example, State relies on embassy staff to conduct end-use monitoring whereas Commerce relies primarily on several officers positioned overseas specifically for this purpose. In addition, a statutory requirement to notify Congress of proposed firearms exports over $1 million would no longer apply to firearms that transfer from State to Commerce, according to Commerce officials.
According to the proposed rules and agency officials, the proposed transfer, if finalized, would result in a decline in licenses and revenues for State and an increase in licenses for Commerce, but the precise extent of these changes is unknown. State estimates that the transfer would result in a decline in revenue from registration fees but officials stated it is difficult to predict the extent of this decline. Commerce officials stated that they expected their licensing and enforcement workload to increase as a result of the transfer, if finalized, but they believe they have sufficient staff resources available to absorb the increase."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The U.S. government implements an export control system to manage risks associated with exporting sensitive items while facilitating legitimate trade. State currently controls the export of most firearms, artillery, and ammunition. Regulatory changes proposed by State and Commerce would transfer this responsibility for many of these items to Commerce, which implements export controls under different legal and regulatory authorities. The proposed changes are part of a larger export control reform effort since 2010 to transfer control of less sensitive items from State to Commerce.
GAO was asked to review the proposed changes to export controls of firearms, artillery, and ammunition. This report assesses (1) the volume and value of commercial export license applications State reviewed for these items in fiscal years 2013-2017, (2) how certain export controls differ between State and Commerce, and (3) what is known about the resource implications for State and Commerce due to the proposed transfer. GAO reviewed the proposed rules and related laws and regulations; analyzed data and documents related to licensing, end-use monitoring, and staff resources; and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that if the proposed regulatory changes become final, State and Commerce develop a process for sharing State's internal watch list with Commerce to enhance oversight of firearms, artillery, and ammunition exports. State and Commerce agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-307?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Security Assistance
WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on U.S. assistance through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. The report (GAO-19-201) is titled "Security Assistance: U.S. Agencies Should Establish a Mechanism to Assess Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Progress".The report was sent to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Albio Sires, D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, Rep. Paul Cook, R-California, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-South ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on U.S. assistance through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. The report (GAO-19-201) is titled "Security Assistance: U.S. Agencies Should Establish a Mechanism to Assess Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Progress". The report was sent to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Albio Sires, D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, Rep. Paul Cook, R-California, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-SouthCarolina, and Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-New York, on Feb. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "U.S. agencies have allocated more than $560 million for the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) from fiscal years 2010 through 2018 for activities related to the three pillars of CBSI--reduce illicit trafficking (such as in narcotics and firearms), improve public safety and security, and promote social justice. For example, State Department's (State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) has ongoing activities such as advisory programs and equipment procurements, while the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has activities aimed at increasing economic opportunities for at-risk youth and improving the skills of prosecutors.
The U.S. government has undertaken some planning and reporting of CBSI activities, but State has not created an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism. Agencies individually set strategic goals and priorities with CBSI countries and plan and report on their CBSI activities on a country-specific basis. However, State has not created an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism that facilitates interagency coordination or establishes consistent performance indicators across agencies, countries, and activities--key elements for effectively aligning foreign assistance strategies. Without such a planning and reporting mechanism, overall progress of the initiative cannot be assessed.
State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators for selected CBSI activities, and INL is taking steps to improve identified weaknesses in its program monitoring. State and USAID had established objectives and performance indicators for the 25 activities in our sample. However, INL cannot ensure the reliability of its program monitoring data because collection and maintenance of this data is conducted differently in each country and there is no centralized data storage system. INL recently contracted to improve and standardize its program monitoring data for Western Hemisphere activities, but according to INL officials, data challenges remain--in particular, how to collect standardized data from each of the embassies and how to build a data management system that is compatible with State requirements. Without reliable data, INL may continue to struggle with program monitoring of CBSI activities."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Caribbean region, which shares geographic proximity and common interests with the United States, faces high rates of crime and violence. In 2010, the United States and Caribbean countries formally launched CBSI, which aims to increase citizen safety. GAO was asked to examine U.S. assistance through CBSI. This report (1) discusses U.S. funding for CBSI activities, (2) examines the extent to which there is a planning and reporting process for CBSI, and (3) examines the extent to which State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators to measure progress of their CBSI activities. GAO analyzed State and USAID data; assessed government strategies and performance reports; selected a non-generalizable sample of 25 CBSI activities and analyzed State and USAID documentation related to those activities; interviewed relevant officials; and conducted fieldwork in Barbados, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, which are the countries generally receiving the most CBSI funding."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State (1) create an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism for CBSI that includes the ability to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts, and (2) ensure that INL develops and implements a data management system for centrally collecting reliable CBSI data. State agreed with the recommendations, noting that it plans to develop an updated Results Framework for initiative-wide planning and reporting and to improve centralized data collection through an enhanced data management system."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-201?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Contingent Workforce
WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' measures of nontraditional workers and their accuracy. The report (GAO-19-273R) is titled "Contingent Workforce: BLS is Reassessing Measurement of Nontraditional Workers".The report was sent to Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) periodically collects data on and measures contingent, alternative, and electronically-mediated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' measures of nontraditional workers and their accuracy. The report (GAO-19-273R) is titled "Contingent Workforce: BLS is Reassessing Measurement of Nontraditional Workers". The report was sent to Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) periodically collects data on and measures contingent, alternative, and electronically-mediatedworkers 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. (Table omitted)"
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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-273R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Confucius Institutes
WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. colleges and universities. The report (GAO-19-278) is titled "China: Agreements Establishing Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities Are Similar, but Institute Operations Vary".The report was sent to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. colleges and universities. The report (GAO-19-278) is titled "China: Agreements Establishing Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities Are Similar, but Institute Operations Vary". The report was sent to Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations, Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, GlobalHealth, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, on Feb. 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "According to the Chinese Language Council International, also referred to as Hanban, Confucius Institutes are intended to promote Chinese language and culture in foreign countries. Agreements between Hanban and U.S. colleges and universities (which GAO refers to as U.S. schools) to establish Confucius Institutes are generally similar to one another, though institute operations vary in practice. GAO reviewed 90 agreements and found they describe generally similar activities, funding, and management. For example, the institutes primarily receive funding from Hanban and the U.S. school, and do not receive direct U.S. federal funding. GAO also examined the agreements for language on application of school polices to the institutes, curriculum, and confidentiality, among other things. One-third of the agreements explicitly addressed how U.S. school policies apply to institutes, and a few addressed curriculum. Officials GAO interviewed at case study schools noted that U.S. school policies, including policies on matters such as curriculum, apply to institutes at their schools, though we found schools vary from one another in institute activities and use of resources, including teachers and teaching materials. While 42 of 90 agreements include language indicating that the document was confidential, some agreements were available online or are shared upon request. Some officials at schools that did not post agreements online said this was consistent with handling of other agreements.
School officials, researchers, and others described benefits and concerns related to Confucius Institutes, and suggested ways to improve the institutes. Officials cited increased resources for Chinese language and cultural programs as among key institute benefits. Some researchers and others have expressed concern that the presence of an institute could constrain campus activities and classroom content. For example, several researchers stated that schools with Confucius Institutes might avoid hosting events on topics that could include criticism of China, such as Taiwan or Tibet, so as to not offend Chinese partners. However, school officials offered examples to illustrate that these various concerns did not apply to their institute. For example, officials at 10 case study schools told GAO that they do not use materials provided by Hanban for credit-bearing courses, and school officials stated that Hanban did not place limitations on events of any type. Nonetheless, school officials, researchers, and others suggested ways schools could improve institute management, such as by renegotiating agreements to clarify U.S. schools' authority and making agreements publicly available."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Confucius Institutes are partnerships between Chinese entities and schools in other countries, arranged and funded in part by Hanban, which is affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education. There are more than 500 Confucius Institutes worldwide and 96 located at colleges and universities in the United States as of December 2018. Some researchers, government officials, and others have raised questions about whether the institutes are sources of undue Chinese influence.
GAO was asked to review Confucius Institutes at U.S. colleges and universities. This report describes, among other things, (1) the contents of written agreements between U.S. schools and Hanban and how the institutes operate in practice; and (2) perspectives of school officials, researchers, and others on benefits, concerns, and suggestions relating to the institutes.
GAO analyzed 90 written agreements obtained from U.S. colleges and universities with Confucius Institutes, and interviewed institute personnel and school officials at 10 schools with Confucius Institutes--which were diverse in terms of geography, size, public or private status, and other characteristics. GAO also interviewed officials at the Departments of Defense, Education, and State; researchers; representatives from higher education associations; and officials at schools that closed or declined to open an institute."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-278?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Weapon System Sustainment
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on several issues relating to the sustainment of operational system software for the Department of Defense weapon systems. The report (GAO-19-173) is titled "Weapon System Sustainment: DOD Needs to Better Capture and Report Software Sustainment Costs".The report was sent to Rep. John Garamendi, D-California, chairman, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, on Feb. 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on several issues relating to the sustainment of operational system software for the Department of Defense weapon systems. The report (GAO-19-173) is titled "Weapon System Sustainment: DOD Needs to Better Capture and Report Software Sustainment Costs". The report was sent to Rep. John Garamendi, D-California, chairman, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, on Feb. 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has policies and organizations to manage the sustainment of operational system software. DOD policy defines software sustainment and software maintenance activities synonymously, to comprise any activities or actions that change the software baseline, as well as modifications or upgrades that add capability or functionality. One example of such an action is the Air Force's modifying the security software on the B-52 bomber to better protect against attempted system penetration. The figure below defines the four categories of software sustainment actions.
(Figure Omitted)
DOD policies on life-cycle management of weapon systems address software sustainment, and several DOD organizations--including DOD software centers--play key roles in overseeing and managing software sustainment. DOD policy includes software maintenance as part of core logistics, and it requires the military departments to report biennially to Congress on their estimated workloads to sustain core logistics capabilities, including estimated costs of these workloads. However, while the Army and Air Force categorize and report software sustainment as part of core logistics, the Navy does not. Without the Navy's categorizing and reporting its software sustainment costs, DOD and Congress are not fully informed of the magnitude and cost of core software sustainment capability requirements. This impedes DOD's efforts to plan for a ready and controlled source of technical competence, and to budget resources in peacetime while preserving necessary surge capabilities.
DOD's ability to track weapon system software sustainment costs is impeded by limitations in its collection of software cost data. First, GAO found that the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's (CAPE) Cost and Software Data Reporting system did not collect weapon system cost data from DOD software centers. Recognizing this, CAPE directed in January 2017 that cost and software data efforts on major acquisition programs should begin to be collected from government organizations, including DOD software centers. However, CAPE acknowledges that it lacks an implementation plan to execute and monitor the requirement for these centers to submit cost and software data. Second, GAO also found that the military departments' operating and support cost systems have incomplete software sustainment cost data. DOD policy requires the military departments to collect and maintain actual operating and support costs, including software sustainment costs. Without CAPE's taking steps to prioritize obtaining complete information on operating and support costs for software sustainment, CAPE is challenged in its ability to accurately compile total program costs or provide reliable life-cycle cost estimates to DOD and Congress."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Software is integral to the operation and functionality of DOD equipment, platforms, and weapon systems, including tactical and combat vehicles, aircraft, ships, submarines, and strategic missiles. DOD estimates that software sustainment funding will total at least $15 billion over the next 5 fiscal years. DOD carries out software sustainment at various locations, where DOD uses its maintenance capabilities to maintain, overhaul, and repair its military weapon systems.
GAO was asked to review several issues relating to the sustainment of operational system software for DOD weapon systems. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which (1) DOD has policies and organizations in place to manage the sustainment of operational system software for weapon systems; and (2) DOD and the military departments track costs to sustain weapon system software. GAO reviewed DOD policies and procedures and interviewed cognizant officials from select DOD software centers, among others, who perform weapon system software sustainment activities."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that (1) the Navy categorize and report its software sustainment costs in accordance with DOD policy; and (2) CAPE improve the collection of weapon system software cost data. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-173?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response and recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-253) is titled "U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery: Status of FEMA Public Assistance Funding and Implementation".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response and recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. The report (GAO-19-253) is titled "U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery: Status of FEMA Public Assistance Funding and Implementation". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate HomelandSecurity and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, on Feb. 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) obligated more than $1.4 billion in grant funding for Public Assistance projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) as of October 1, 2018, in response to the 2017 hurricanes. FEMA obligated about $873.8 million for emergency work--debris removal activities and emergency measures to lessen the immediate threat to life, public health, and safety--and about $516.3 million for permanent work--including the repair or replacement of public infrastructure such as roads, electrical utilities, and schools. For example, FEMA obligated about $101 million for the purchase and installation of modular units to be used as temporary classrooms and other facilities while permanent school buildings are repaired or replaced. FEMA's obligations for permanent work also included funding for hazard mitigation measures to reduce the risk of damage during future storms--for example, by replacing wooden utility poles with composite fiberglass poles (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
FEMA and the USVI are transitioning from using the standard Public Assistance program in the territory to using the Public Assistance alternative procedures program. Unlike in the standard Public Assistance program where FEMA will fund the actual cost of a project, the alternative procedures allow awards to be made on the basis of fixed-cost estimates to provide financial incentives for the timely and cost-effective completion of permanent work projects. FEMA and USVI officials stated that the alternative procedures will give the USVI more flexibility in determining when and how to fund projects and provide an opportunity to repair and rebuild the USVI's critical services infrastructure--such as its education system and electrical grid--so it meets industry standards without regard to pre-disaster condition. As of November 2018, FEMA and USVI officials were discussing the process for developing projects under the Public Assistance alternative procedures. GAO will continue to monitor the USVI's plans for using the alternative procedures as part of its broader review assessing the USVI's disaster recovery efforts and will issue a follow-on report later this year."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In September 2017, two major hurricanes--Irma and Maria--struck the USVI, causing billions of dollars in damage to its infrastructure, housing, and economy. FEMA--a component of the Department of Homeland Security--is the lead federal agency responsible for assisting the USVI as it recovers from these natural disasters. Among other responsibilities, FEMA administers the Public Assistance program in partnership with the USVI territorial government, providing the USVI grant funding for response and recovery activities, including debris removal efforts, life-saving emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of public infrastructure.
GAO was asked to review the federal government's response and recovery efforts related to the 2017 hurricanes. This report describes (1) the status of FEMA's Public Assistance program funding provided to the USVI in response to the 2017 hurricanes as of October 1, 2018, and (2) the USVI's transition to implementing the Public Assistance alternative procedures in the territory. GAO reviewed program documents and data on obligations and expenditures as of October 1, 2018, and interviewed officials from FEMA and the USVI regarding the Public Assistance program specifically and disaster recovery efforts more generally. GAO also conducted site visits to the USVI islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report, but will continue to monitor the progress of the USVI's recovery as part of its ongoing work."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-253?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Public School Choice
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on K-12 school choice options for Indian students. The report (GAO-19-226) is titled "Public School Choice: Limited Options Available for Many American Indian and Alaska Native Students".The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, on Jan. 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Few areas provide American Indian and Alaska Native students (Indian students) school ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on K-12 school choice options for Indian students. The report (GAO-19-226) is titled "Public School Choice: Limited Options Available for Many American Indian and Alaska Native Students". The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, on Jan. 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Few areas provide American Indian and Alaska Native students (Indian students) schoolchoice options other than traditional public schools. According to GAO's analysis of 2015-16 Department of Education (Education) data, most of the school districts with Indian student enrollment of at least 25 percent had only traditional public schools (378 of 451 districts, or 84 percent). The remaining 73 districts had at least one choice, such as a Bureau of Indian Education, charter, magnet, or career and technical education school (see figure). Most of these 451 districts were in rural areas near tribal lands. Rural districts may offer few school choice options because, for example, they do not have enough students to justify additional schools or they may face difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers, among other challenges.
(Figure Omitted)
Some of the 100 school districts with the largest number of Indian students were located in large urban areas, such as New York City, and the majority (62) offered at least one option other than a traditional public school, according to GAO's analysis. The most common option was a charter school. However, because Indian students often account for a small percentage of all students in these districts, Indian education experts GAO interviewed said that the schools are less likely to have curricula that reflect Indian students' cultural identity or provide instruction on Native languages--things that tribes and experts consider crucial to strengthening, rebuilding, and sustaining Indian cultures and communities. Also, even when Indian students had more options, no consistent enrollment patterns were evident. Whether Indian students enrolled in different types of schools could be a function, in part, of differences in state school choice laws and the extent to which these schools offered curricula that reflect Indian languages, cultures, or histories, according to Indian education experts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Education refers to school choice as the opportunity for students and their families to create high-quality, personalized paths for learning that best meet the students' needs. For Indian students, school choice can be a means of accessing instructional programs that reflect and preserve their languages, cultures, and histories. For many years, studies have shown that Indian students have struggled academically and the nation's K-12 schools have not consistently provided Indian students with high-quality and culturally-relevant educational opportunities.
GAO was asked to review K-12 school choice options for Indian students. This report examines the public school options located in areas with large Indian student populations. GAO used Education's Common Core of Data for school year 2015-16 (most recent available) to analyze public school choice in (1) school districts in which Indian students accounted for 25 percent or more of all students (i.e., high percentages of Indian students) and (2) the 100 school districts with the largest number of Indian students. GAO also interviewed federal officials, relevant stakeholder groups, and tribal leaders to better understand school choice options for Indian students."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-226?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Large Bank Supervision
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on regulatory capture in financial regulation. The report (GAO-19-69) is titled "Large Bank Supervision: OCC Could Better Address Risk of Regulatory Capture".The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, on Jan. 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Banking regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) can implement policies to address the risk of regulatory ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on regulatory capture in financial regulation. The report (GAO-19-69) is titled "Large Bank Supervision: OCC Could Better Address Risk of Regulatory Capture". The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, on Jan. 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Banking regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) can implement policies to address the risk of regulatorycapture. The objectives of these policies include reducing the benefit to industry of capturing the supervisory process, reducing avenues of inducement offered by regulated banks, and promoting a culture that values independence (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
OCC has some policies that encourage transparency and accountability in its large bank supervision processes; however, weaknesses in documentation requirements may make large bank supervision more vulnerable to regulatory capture. For example, examination teams are not required to document internal deliberations or communications with banks that lead to consequential decisions for a bank, such as supervisory or enforcement actions. Further, examination teams are required to delete drafts of key documents that memorialize reviews that are part of the supervisory process. Maintaining a complete and transparent record of decision making and important communication with banks could improve OCC's ability to mitigate capture-based decisions.
OCC also has some policies to mitigate conflicts of interest, but implementation is hindered by issues related to collection and use of data and lack of program assessments. For example, when staffing a bank examination team, OCC does not have a policy to verify that employees do not have active conflicts of interest by checking employee data. OCC also does not periodically assess the implementation of its ethics program, including policies and procedures intended to help the agency meet ethics laws and regulations. Improving data collection and assessing policies, controls, and guidance that identify and address conflicts of interest could help OCC ensure that its ethics program is operating effectively.
OCC leadership has taken some steps to demonstrate support for supervisory independence, but its approach to mitigating regulatory capture is narrow. For example, OCC only considers two factors when assessing the risk of capture: the tone of its media coverage and the extent to which examination staff rotate among banks. OCC does not analyze other relevant factors, such as employee movement to and from industry or its supervision practices, which can impact this risk. Without expanding its approach to addressing the risk of regulatory capture, OCC may be missing opportunities to identify other ways in which this enterprise-wide risk may affect the agency."
Why GAO Did This Study: "OCC supervises over 1,300 financial institutions, with assets under supervision totaling $12 trillion. Weakness in supervision by federal regulators was among many factors that contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, and some analyses have identified regulatory capture as one potential cause. Regulatory capture refers to a regulator acting in the interest of the regulated industry rather than in the public interest.
GAO was asked to review regulatory capture in financial regulation. This report examines the extent to which OCC (1) has policies that encourage transparency and accountability in the large bank supervision process, (2) has policies that address employees' conflicts of interest that could threaten their independence, and (3) promotes an agency-wide focus on supervisory independence and mitigating the risk of capture. GAO reviewed OCC policies, analyzed examination workpapers, and interviewed supervisory staff. GAO also analyzed conflict-of-interest data, as well as OCC's enterprise risk management framework."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making nine recommendations to OCC related to managing the risk of regulatory capture, including improving the documentation of its supervision process, checking for conflicts of interest, periodically assessing the ethics program, and expanding its approach to addressing the risk of capture across the agency, among others. OCC agreed with one recommendation, disagreed with five, and neither agreed nor disagreed with three. GAO maintains that the recommendations are valid."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-69?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOE's Management, Operating Contracts
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's performance management of its management and operating contracts. The report (GAO-19-5) is titled "Department of Energy: Performance Evaluations Could Better Assess Management and Operating Contractor Costs".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's performance management of its management and operating contracts. The report (GAO-19-5) is titled "Department of Energy: Performance Evaluations Could Better Assess Management and Operating Contractor Costs". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. BobbyL. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair, Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on Feb. 26. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In fiscal years 2006 through 2016, six offices within the Department of Energy (DOE) generally used one of three different approaches to evaluate management and operating (M&O) contractor performance. Although these approaches varied in the performance criteria and methodologies used for determining contractor ratings and incentives, all the offices annually set expectations for contractors and assessed performance.
In analyzing DOE's fiscal year 2016 Performance Evaluation Reports (PER), GAO found that these reports provided less information on M&O contractors' cost performance than on contractors' technical and administrative performance. The cost information provided in the PERs often was not detailed, did not indicate the significance of the performance being described, and applied only to specific activities. Further, the information is of limited use for acquisition decision-making, such as deciding whether to extend the length of a contract, because it does not permit an overall assessment of cost performance. A key reason PERs did not include more cost performance information is that the DOE offices' policies do not require specific assessments of cost performance or discuss how to ensure cost information is useful for future acquisition decision-making. By updating policies to require inclusion of quality cost performance information in PERs, DOE offices could better assess M&O contractors' costs, improve acquisition decision-making, and ensure performance evaluations fully address required elements.
Based on GAO's review of DOE M&O contractor performance evaluations from fiscal years 2006 through 2016, DOE generally provided high performance ratings and more than 90 percent of available performance incentives (see figure). Ratings for some areas of contractor performance, as well as ratings for contractor performance at specific DOE sites, varied from this trend. For example, three times during this period contractors received 50 percent or less of available award and incentive fees due to a major accident and safety and security issues. (Figure Omitted)"
Why GAO Did This Study: "In fiscal years 2006 through 2016, the federal government spent almost $193 billion on DOE's M&O contracts--a form of contract that traces its origins to the Manhattan Project. Six DOE offices use M&O contracts to manage and operate federally owned sites that perform work to fulfill DOE's diverse missions, such as conducting scientific research and maintaining nuclear weapons.
GAO was asked to review DOE's performance management of its M&O contracts. This report examines, among other things, (1) how DOE offices evaluated M&O contractor performance in fiscal years 2006 through 2016; (2) the extent to which DOE's fiscal year 2016 M&O contractor PERs provide information on contractors' technical, administrative, and cost performance; and (3) the results of DOE's M&O contractor performance evaluations for fiscal years 2006 through 2016.
GAO reviewed performance evaluation documents for 21 of the 22 DOE M&O contracts; analyzed DOE policies, procedures, and guidelines, and federal regulations; analyzed technical, administrative, and cost aspects of M&O contracts' 2016 PERs; and interviewed DOE officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations to DOE, including to each of the six DOE offices to update their policies requiring that PERs include quality information to enable an overall assessment of M&O contractor cost performance. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE generally agreed with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-5?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Superfund Sites
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency has reliable data identifying National Priorities List sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes. The report (GAO-19-123) is titled "Superfund: EPA Should Improve the Reliability of Data on National Priorities List Sites Affecting Indian Tribes".The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency has reliable data identifying National Priorities List sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes. The report (GAO-19-123) is titled "Superfund: EPA Should Improve the Reliability of Data on National Priorities List Sites Affecting Indian Tribes". The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Rep.Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, ranking member of the Natural Resources subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-California, Rep. Donald S. Beyer Jr., D-Virginia, Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-California, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-New York, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D- Missouri, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, Rep. Daniel T. Kildee, D-Michigan, Rep. Derek Kilmer. D-Washington, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Arizona, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-California, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-New Mexico, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minnesota, Rep. Gwen S. Moore, D-Wisconsin, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-California, Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-California, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, D-California, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, and Rep. Norma Torres, D-California, on Jan. 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have reliable data identifying National Priorities List (NPL) sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes. Specifically, EPA collects data on whether sites are on tribal property or have Native American Interest (a data variable indicating sites where tribal members or tribal land would be directly affected by the release of hazardous substances), as well as which tribes are associated with NPL sites. However, EPA's data are not always accurate or complete for a number of reasons. For example, EPA can have difficulty identifying some tribal property boundaries, and NPL site boundaries may evolve as the site is investigated and remediated. EPA does not have a regular review process for its data on whether an NPL site is on tribal property. In addition, EPA's guidance for determining whether a site has Native American Interest is unclear, and regions may not interpret it consistently. Without improving its review process and clarifying its guidance, EPA will not have reasonable assurance that its data on tribes that are affected by NPL sites are accurate or complete.
EPA consults with tribes when actions at an NPL site may affect tribal interests, but the agency does not have reliable data on its consultations with tribes. Data from EPA's system for tracking consultation did not include documentation of some consultations that GAO confirmed had occurred. One possible reason that EPA data are incomplete is that the agency's policy is unclear on which interactions are considered consultation and are therefore to be documented in EPA's system of record, which is not consistent with federal standards for internal control. EPA's policy provides a broad definition of consultation and specifies which staff are responsible for determining when consultation may be appropriate. However, the policy does not provide further guidance on the circumstances under which consultation should be considered. For example, it does not specify any specific points in the hazardous substance cleanup process at which consultation should be considered or provide further detail on which tribal interests should be considered when determining if tribal interests on NPL sites are affected. Without clarifying guidance to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered, EPA cannot have reasonable assurance that it is applying its consultation policy consistently.
EPA has taken various actions to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions. These actions include minimizing tribal members' exposure to contaminants because of tribal lifestyle (e.g., greater consumption of local fish and game) and limiting potential damage to culturally important sites. For example, EPA officials said that at one site, they altered the design and route of the roads used to remove contaminated materials to minimize the impact of cleanup activities' on cultural resources. EPA also published a memorandum in 2017 with recommendations on considering tribes' traditional ecological knowledge in the cleanup process if tribes offer it."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Superfund is EPA's principal program to address sites with hazardous substances, and some of the most seriously contaminated of these sites are listed on the NPL. Many of these sites can affect Indian tribes or their land. EPA has a policy to consult with tribes when EPA actions or decisions may affect tribal interests, including on cleanup of NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes.
GAO was asked to analyze NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes and EPA's consultation with tribes at these sites. This report: (1) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, (2) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data on the agency's consultation with tribes regarding NPL sites, and (3) describes the actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions at Superfund sites. GAO reviewed laws and policies, assessed EPA data on NPL sites, and interviewed EPA and tribal officials about cleanup actions and consultations at six non-generalizable NPL sites selected in part for their geographic diversity."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to EPA, including that it take actions to improve the data it collects and to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered. EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-123?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Shellfish Aquaculture Permitting Activities
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Army Corps of Engineers' process for authorizing shellfish aquaculture activity in U.S. coastal waters. The report (GAO-19-145) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Information on Shellfish Aquaculture Permitting Activities".The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Army Corps of Engineers' process for authorizing shellfish aquaculture activity in U.S. coastal waters. The report (GAO-19-145) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Information on Shellfish Aquaculture Permitting Activities". The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma,on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authorized most (87 percent) of the 3,751 shellfish aquaculture applications it received from 2012 through 2017, according to Corps data. Of the 19 Corps districts that have coastal waters within their geographic areas of responsibility, 17 districts received and authorized applications. The majority of those districts (13 of 17) authorized applications using Nationwide Permit 48, a type of permit intended to streamline the authorization process for shellfish aquaculture activities. Additionally, districts may add conditions to nationwide permits or develop region-specific permits to address state or regional environmental concerns. Of the four districts GAO reviewed in detail, two districts added regional conditions applicable to Nationwide Permit 48, such as prohibiting shellfish activity within submerged aquatic vegetation beds or saltmarshes.
The 15 permit applicants from the four districts GAO reviewed had mixed views on their experiences with seeking authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities. For example, 10 applicants across the four districts described the length of time to authorize their activities--ranging from 1 day to about 4 months--as reasonable, with several applicants indicating the Corps was efficient in reviewing their applications. In contrast, five applicants from three Corps districts said that the amount of time it took for the Corps to authorize their shellfish aquaculture activities--ranging from 18 days to about 8 months--was unreasonable. Corps officials from the four districts indicated they have taken some steps to help reduce authorization review time. For example, the four districts took steps to more efficiently conduct reviews under the Endangered Species Act. This has in turn helped reduce the Corps' time frames for issuing authorizations, according to Corps officials GAO interviewed. For instance, officials from one district said their review time declined from over 30 days to 1 to 2 days as a result of the change in the review process."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Entities undertaking shellfish aquaculture activities (i.e., the breeding and harvesting of oysters, clams, and mussels) may need to submit an application to the Corps in certain circumstances for authorization to conduct these activities. The Corps authorizes such activities using various permits, as long as the activities comply with various environmental and other laws.
GAO was asked to review the Corps' process for authorizing shellfish aquaculture activity in U.S. coastal waters. This report describes, for 2012 through 2017, (1) the number and outcomes of the applications the Corps received for shellfish aquaculture activities and the types of permits the Corps used to authorize such activities, and (2) the experiences of permit applicants in selected districts in seeking Corps' authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities.
GAO reviewed laws and permitting documents and analyzed data on the number, outcomes, and types of permits the Corps used for 2012 through 2017 from the Corps' permitting database and assessed its reliability. GAO also reviewed detailed information from a non-generalizable sample of 15 permit applications and interviewed the applicants and Corps officials from four Corps districts, selected to reflect variation in geographic location and shellfish activity; the information from the four districts is not generalizable to other Corps districts."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-145?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DHS's FY 2017 Overstay Report
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal 2017 overstay report . The report (GAO-19-298R) is titled "Department of Homeland Security: Review of the Fiscal Year 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Report".The report was sent to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-California, chairman, and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Appropriations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal 2017 overstay report . The report (GAO-19-298R) is titled "Department of Homeland Security: Review of the Fiscal Year 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Report". The report was sent to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-California, chairman, and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Homeland Security, on Feb. 22. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed and implemented a metric to calculate the number and rate of air and sea overstays--nonimmigrants who remain in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorized period of stay--which it has published annually beginning with its fiscal year 2015 overstay report. As presented in the annual report, the overstay rate is an automated calculation based on the number of nonimmigrant admissions to the United States through air or sea ports of entry who were expected to, but did not, depart in a fiscal year divided by the total number of expected departures for that fiscal year. DHS has also taken steps to improve its identification of overstays and the calculation of the overstay rate by, for example, automating the exchange of nonimmigrant data between DHS components. Based on these and other improvements, DHS has included more complete data in the annual overstay report on more classes of admission over time, such as including foreign students beginning in fiscal year 2016.
DHS's fiscal year 2017 overstay report states that the report accounts for about 97 percent of all air and sea nonimmigrants expected to depart in fiscal year 2017. The remaining 3 percent pertained to classes of admission who are unlikely to overstay, according to DHS (e.g., foreign diplomats and flight crews). According to the fiscal year 2017 overstay report, there were about 52.7 million nonimmigrant admissions to the United States through air or sea ports of entry who were expected to depart the country in fiscal year 2017. DHS identified about 702,000 overstays during that time frame--1.33 percent of admissions. However, the overstay report does not include a metric for determining the total (i.e., cumulative) nonimmigrant air and sea overstay population in the United States at a given time as directed by the Explanatory Statement accompanying Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (2018 Explanatory Statement). Specifically, the report does not include air and sea overstays from prior years who may remain in the United States. DHS officials stated that they are considering including the total number of suspected air and sea overstays expected to depart since fiscal year 2015--the first year CBP determined overstay data to be reliable--in future reports.
Although the overstay report identifies air and sea overstays, due to existing limitations in collecting departure data in the land environment, the 2017 overstay report provides limited departure and overstay information for land ports of entry, which DHS is required to collect and report by law. When DHS uses data collected at land ports of entry, it is primarily to match records of certain travelers arriving into the United States by air and sea to records of those that may have subsequently departed by land to Canada. However, DHS has efforts underway to collect biographic and biometric data on travelers departing the United States at land ports to help develop a more comprehensive overstay estimate. For example, in fiscal year 2017, CBP began planning for a pilot test at the San Luis and Nogales, Arizona, ports of entry to demonstrate the feasibility of acquiring photos of all arriving and departing travelers and comparing those photos using facial recognition to photos in government databases. CBP officials stated that the pilot test for arriving travelers began at the San Luis Port of Entry in September 2018 and the Nogales Port of Entry in October 2018."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Each year, millions of foreign visitors, or nonimmigrants, legally enter the United States on a temporary basis under specific nonimmigrant categories. They may travel to the United States with or, as permitted, without a nonimmigrant visa and then enter the United States after admission at a U.S. port of entry for an authorized period of stay. DHS has primary responsibility for identifying and addressing suspected overstays. According to DHS, identifying overstays is important for national security, public safety, and immigration enforcement.
The 2018 Explanatory Statement directed DHS to develop and report within 180 days after enactment (by September 2018) on a statistically-sound metric for measuring the total nonimmigrant air and sea overstay population in the United States at a given time. DHS responded to this directive through its Fiscal Year 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Report.
The 2018 Explanatory Statement also included a provision for GAO to review DHS's report and provide a preliminary briefing to the House and Senate Appropriations committees on its review within 90 days of DHS providing its report to the committees. To examine how DHS identifies the total population of overstays who entered the United States through air and sea ports, GAO reviewed DHS's fiscal years 2015 through 2017 Entry/Exit Overstay Reports, including the findings and methodology, reviewed DHS documentation on how department officials determine the number of overstays, observed how DHS generates data for the overstay report by watching a DHS official extract data from DHS's overstay data system, and interviewed DHS officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-298R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Health Care
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has determined and reported to Congress on its operational medical and dental personnel requirements. The report (GAO-19-206) is titled "Defense Health Care: Actions Needed to Determine the Required Size and Readiness of Operational Medical and Dental Forces".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has determined and reported to Congress on its operational medical and dental personnel requirements. The report (GAO-19-206) is titled "Defense Health Care: Actions Needed to Determine the Required Size and Readiness of Operational Medical and Dental Forces". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry,R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. GAO found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. DOD expects to provide its next update to Congress in February 2019. Until DOD establishes joint planning assumptions for developing medical and dental personnel requirements, including a definition, and a method to assess options for achieving joint efficiencies, DOD will not know whether it has the optimal requirements to achieve its missions.
DOD has begun initiatives to maintain the critical wartime readiness of medical providers. DOD's initiatives have included standardizing and expanding pre-deployment training and developing new policy on medical provider readiness. In addition, department leaders have been directing transformation efforts to improve readiness. However, DOD's methodology is limited with respect to a key initiative that will use a metric to assess medical providers' clinical readiness--a component of wartime readiness. Specifically:
* DOD does not use complete, accurate, and consistent data that fully demonstrate results. Source data for the metric have not passed DOD audits for at least 3 years, and the metric does not assess the readiness of reservists who comprise a substantial portion of combat casualty care capability. Also, according to congressional testimony and related research an estimated 25 percent of combat deaths were potentially preventable but were not related to provider readiness. Thus, the metric may not lead to expected improvements in patient outcomes in operational environments. Until DOD identifies and mitigates limitations in the readiness metric data, leaders may not have the best information to support decision-making.
* DOD has not made decisions about the specialties to which its metric should apply or budgeted for full implementation of the metric. DOD plans to develop a metric for 72 provider specialties. However, GAO found that 12 specialties do not deploy. According to OSD officials, few of the 72 specialties (i.e., those that practice combat casualty care) rely on highly complex skills that may rapidly degrade without regular practice and would benefit most from a metric. DOD officials stated that the metric's implementation costs may be substantial and the return on investment may differ by specialty. Moreover, DOD has not fully budgeted for implementing the metric by, for example, funding additional training for providers to meet readiness thresholds. Until DOD determines the critical wartime medical specialties to apply its clinical readiness metric and estimates the costs and benefits of applying the metric to each, it will not know if its implementation is being targeted to the areas of greatest return on investment."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In recent years, the Senate Armed Services Committee and DOD have raised concerns that the military health system has prioritized peacetime care to the detriment of combat casualty care capability and wartime medical skills.
Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's efforts to address requirements from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 regarding the required numbers of medical and dental personnel and wartime readiness. This report examines the extent to which DOD has (1) determined and reported to Congress on its operational medical and dental personnel requirements, and (2) initiatives to maintain and a methodology to assess the critical wartime readiness of medical providers. GAO reviewed DOD reports and personnel requirements data for fiscal year 2017 and future years, and interviewed senior DOD leaders as well as officials at six military treatment facilities to represent each military department and provide a mix of patient volumes."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD establish joint planning assumptions and a definition, and a method for assessing medical and dental personnel requirements; identify and mitigate limitations in a clinical readiness metric for medical providers; and determine specialties and estimate costs and benefits for applying a readiness metric. DOD concurred with all six recommendations and described implementation steps it plans to take."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-206?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Contracting
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the safety and health records of Department of Defense contractors. The report (GAO-19-235) is titled "Defense Contracting: Enhanced Information Needed on Contractor Workplace Safety".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the safety and health records of Department of Defense contractors. The report (GAO-19-235) is titled "Defense Contracting: Enhanced Information Needed on Contractor Workplace Safety". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith,D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
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.
(Figure Omitted)
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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-235?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Coast Guard's management of its shore infrastructure. The report (GAO-19-82) is titled "Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: Applying Leading Practices Could Help Better Manage Project Backlogs of at Least $2.6 Billion".The report was sent to Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, Rep. John Garamendi, D-California, Rep. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Coast Guard's management of its shore infrastructure. The report (GAO-19-82) is titled "Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure: Applying Leading Practices Could Help Better Manage Project Backlogs of at Least $2.6 Billion". The report was sent to Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, Rep. John Garamendi, D-California, Rep. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "About 45 percent of the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond its service life, and its current backlogs of maintenance and recapitalization projects, as of 2018, will cost at least $2.6 billion to address, according to Coast Guard information. The deferred maintenance backlog included more than 5,600 projects, with an estimated cost of $900 million. The recapitalization and new construction backlog had 125 projects, with an estimated cost of at least $1.77 billion as of 2018 (see figure). GAO's analysis of Coast Guard data found that as of November 2018 there were hundreds of recapitalization projects without cost estimates--the majority of recapitalization projects. Coast Guard officials told GAO that these projects are in the preliminary stages of development.
(Figure Omitted)
The Coast Guard's process for managing its shore infrastructure did not fully meet 6 of 9 leading practices that GAO previously identified. Of the nine leading practices, the Coast Guard met three, partially met three, and did not meet three. For example, the Coast Guard generally has not employed models for predicting the outcome of maintenance investments and optimizing among competing investments, as called for in leading practices. In one instance, the Coast Guard used a model to optimize maintenance for its aviation pavement and, according to Coast Guard officials, found that it could save nearly $14 million by accelerating investment in this area (e.g., paving runways) sooner rather than deferring such maintenance. Coast Guard officials told us that such modeling could be applied within and across all of its shore infrastructure asset types, but the Coast Guard did not implement the results of this model and does not require their use. Without requiring the use of such models, the Coast Guard could be missing opportunities to achieve cost savings and better manage its maintenance backlogs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Coast Guard, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), owns or leases more than 20,000 shore facilities, such as piers, docks, boat stations, air stations, and housing units, at more than 2,700 locations. In June 2017, the Coast Guard testified to Congress that it had a $1.6 billion recapitalization backlog for its shore infrastructure, which had a replacement value of about $20 billion.
GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard's management of its shore infrastructure. This report examines: (1) what is known about the condition and costs of managing the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard's process for managing its shore infrastructure meets leading practices.
To answer these questions, GAO reviewed relevant laws and Coast Guard annual reports on its shore infrastructure, analyzed Coast Guard data, and interviewed Coast Guard officials. GAO also compared Coast Guard policies and procedures, and actions taken during fiscal years 2012 through 2018 to manage its shore infrastructure, against the leading practices that GAO previously identified for managing public sector maintenance backlogs."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, which DHS agreed to implement, including that the Coast Guard align its management of its shore infrastructure backlogs with leading practices by requiring the use of models for predicting the outcome of, and optimizing among, competing investments for maintenance projects."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-82?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Advance Care Planning
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to completing and accessing advance care planning documents. The report (GAO-19-231) is titled "Advance Care Planning: Selected States' Efforts to Educate and Address Access Challenges".The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to completing and accessing advance care planning documents. The report (GAO-19-231) is titled "Advance Care Planning: Selected States' Efforts to Educate and Address Access Challenges". The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, on Feb. 21. Here are excerpts of summariesassociated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Advance care planning documents--including advance directives and physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST)--allow individuals to express their wishes for end-of-life care. Advance directives, which include living wills and health care power of attorney, provide direction regarding care when an individual becomes incapacitated. POLST documents are appropriate for seriously ill individuals whose health status indicates the need for medical orders to be documented in their medical records.
Stakeholders from national organizations and officials in the four states GAO selected to review cited several challenges--affecting both individuals and health care providers--related to the use of advance care planning documents. In particular, they noted a lack of understanding about how to complete the documents and how to initiate conversations about advance care planning. They also cited challenges related to the difficulty of ensuring access to completed documents when needed, such as in an emergency situation.
Officials from state agencies and stakeholder organizations in the four selected states reported pursuing various strategies to improve understanding of advance care planning documents by conducting education efforts for individuals and providers. In addition, the states utilized strategies to improve access to completed documents, such as improving the electronic exchange of information between health records and a state registry, which is a central repository intended to improve access to the documents. Further, stakeholder officials reported strategies related to the acceptance of out-of-state advance care planning documents; all four selected states had statutory provisions that address the validity of documents executed in another state."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Many individuals receive medical care for a serious or life-limiting condition during the last months of life, which may involve making difficult decisions about life-sustaining treatment. Advance care planning helps ensure that physicians, families, and friends have documentation outlining individuals' wishes under these circumstances.
GAO was asked to identify issues related to completing and accessing advance care planning documents. This report describes, among other things, (1) the challenges individuals and providers face completing and accessing the documents, and (2) selected states' strategies for improving individuals' and providers' understanding of and access to advance care planning documents.
GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from national stakeholder organizations involved in advance care planning or aging issues, and conducted a literature review of relevant articles published from January 2012 to April 2018 in peer-reviewed and other publications. In addition, GAO interviewed officials from state agencies and stakeholder organizations in California, Idaho, Oregon, and West Virginia. GAO selected those four states because they were active in encouraging advance care planning and had registries for completed documents that were in different stages of development.
The Department of Health and Human Services, states, and stakeholders provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-231?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Retirement Accounts
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on unclaimed retirement savings transferred to states. The report (GAO-19-88) is titled "Retirement Accounts: Federal Action Needed to Clarify Tax Treatment of Unclaimed 401(k) Plan Savings Transferred to States".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Jan. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Millions of dollars in retirement savings are transferred to states as unclaimed property, only some of which is later claimed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on unclaimed retirement savings transferred to states. The report (GAO-19-88) is titled "Retirement Accounts: Federal Action Needed to Clarify Tax Treatment of Unclaimed 401(k) Plan Savings Transferred to States". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Jan. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Millions of dollars in retirement savings are transferred to states as unclaimed property, only some of which is later claimedby owners. Of the 22 states responding to GAO's survey, 17 states provided data indicating that $35 million in unclaimed retirement savings was transferred to them from employer plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) in 2016. When account owners do not claim money from retirement savings accounts or cash checks from their plans, the funds may be transferred to state unclaimed property offices (see fig.). Assets and uncashed checks from employer plans (such as 401(k) plans), were the most common form of retirement savings transferred to states. After funds are transferred, owners can claim their savings from the state. According to the 15 states providing data on this, owners claimed about $25 million in retirement savings in 2016: $601, on average, from 401(k) plan checks, and $5,817, on average, from traditional lRAs. States reported using a range of strategies to maintain the value of retirement savings while holding these funds, such as applying interest. States also reported various efforts to locate owners. However, not all savings will be claimed because, among other reasons, owner information is not always associated with transferred savings when the amount is small, which complicates state efforts to locate some owners.
(Figure Omitted)
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) have issued guidance on transferring retirement savings to states; however, IRS has not clarified certain responsibilities or ensured that the retirement savings that owners claim from states can be rolled over into other tax-deferred retirement accounts. IRS is responsible for communicating and enforcing tax responsibilities, but has not specified whether 401(k) plan providers should report state transfers to IRS as distributions and withhold federal income taxes. IRS officials said the agency has not issued guidance to clarify this issue because of competing priorities. As a result, 401(k) plan provider practices vary--some providers withhold taxes when transferring savings to states while others do not. This makes the IRS less likely to collect federal income taxes that may be due if transfers are taxable events. IRS also has not taken action to ensure that individuals who claim 401(k) savings from a state can roll over these savings to other tax-deferred retirement accounts after IRS's 60-day deadline. IRS allows individuals to roll over savings after 60 days for several reasons, none of which include claiming 401(k) savings from a state. Federal law seeks to protect the interests of participants in retirement plans. Account owners who are unable to roll over their reclaimed savings forgo the opportunity to continue investing the funds on a tax-deferred basis."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Over the course of individuals' careers, their retirement savings can be spread across multiple retirement accounts and they can change jobs, both of which can cause their savings to become unclaimed and even lost. Prior GAO work has found that unclaimed retirement savings are sometimes transferred to the states. GAO was asked to review such transfers.
This report examines (1) how much in retirement savings is transferred to states as unclaimed property and what happens to those savings once transferred and (2) the steps IRS and DOL have taken to oversee these transfers and what improvements are needed. GAO interviewed federal and state officials, industry representatives, and other stakeholders, and surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia (and received 22 responses). GAO also surveyed 401(k) plan service providers and IRA trustees regarding the volume of retirement savings transferred to states and their federal tax reporting and withholding practices for those transfers."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations, including that IRS should consider clarifying whether transfers from employer-based plans (such as 401(k) plans) to states constitute reportable and taxable distributions and consider modifying its list of permitted reasons for rolling over savings after the 60-day rollover deadline. IRS agreed with our recommendations and noted that it will work with the Department of the Treasury to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-88?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Child Care, Development Fund
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. The report (GAO-19-222R) is titled "Child Care and Development Fund: Subsidy Receipt and Plans for New Funds".The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House on Education ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. The report (GAO-19-222R) is titled "Child Care and Development Fund: Subsidy Receipt and Plans for New Funds". The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House on Educationand Labor Committee, on Feb. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "An estimated one-quarter of children eligible for child care subsidies under state eligibility rules received them (2.1 million of the 8.4 million children in an average month estimated to be eligible under state rules), according to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) analysis of data from fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which such analysis is available. This represented 15 percent of all children estimated to be eligible under federal rules, as generally, fewer families qualify for subsidies under state eligibility rules than under federal eligibility rules since most states use flexibility provided by HHS to set their income eligibility limits below the federal maximum.
HHS also estimated that, among families who met federal eligibility criteria, children from lower-income families were more likely to receive child care subsidies compared to children from higher-income families. These estimates also showed that preschool-aged children were more likely to receive subsidies compared to older, school-aged children. For example, 45 percent of 5-year-old children from families with incomes below the federal poverty line received subsidies, while 11 percent of 5-year-olds with family incomes between 150 and 199 percent of poverty received subsidies. Additionally, 51 percent of 3-year-olds from families with incomes below the federal poverty line received subsidies, while 29 percent of 6- to 9-year-old children with family incomes below the poverty line received subsidies.
In GAO's survey of 51 state Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administrators, almost all states (44) reported they expect to spend the new discretionary CCDF funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, on at least one of several state child care activities related to requirements of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended (CCDBG Act). The most frequently reported activities were spending toward child care provider payment rates and parental copayments, professional development of the child care workforce, and consumer education. For example, under the CCDBG Act, states must certify that their child care provider payment rates are sufficient to ensure that children eligible for subsidies have the same access to child care services as children who are not eligible for CCDF subsidies. Officials in two states told GAO the state plans to use these funds to increase payment rates for subsidized child care providers who provide nighttime and weekend care, in an effort to promote access to child care for families with nontraditional work hours. Three-quarters of states GAO surveyed (38) also reported they expect to spend the new funds on at least one additional state child care activity that is not explicitly required. The activities most frequently cited were spending on a tiered quality rating system, child care resource and referral system, and for quality activities beyond the required minimum. In addition, nearly one-third of states (16) reported in GAO's survey that they plan to use new CCDF funds to pay for subsidies for children on their wait lists to receive child care. States may use a wait list when they do not have sufficient CCDF funds to provide subsidies to all eligible families that apply. However, some state CCDF administrators expressed uncertainty about their states' plans for using the new CCDF funds. For example, officials in more than one-third of states GAO interviewed (6) said they were still in the process of deciding how to spend the new funds."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal child care subsidy program known as CCDF is the primary source of federal funding dedicated to assisting low-income families who are working or participating in education and training by increasing their access to quality child care. Discretionary funding for CCDF, which is administered by HHS, is authorized by the CCDBG Act. The Act also includes various requirements for states, including spending a minimum amount on activities designed to improve the quality of child care services. In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 was enacted, which provided $5.2 billion in discretionary CCDF funding for fiscal year 2018, approximately twice the amount provided in fiscal year 2017.
The CCDBG Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to review every 2 years the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the CCDBG Act, as well as those who have applied for assistance and those who have been placed on a wait list for assistance. To address this provision, this report describes (1) what is known from the most recent data available from HHS about the extent to which eligible children received child care subsidies and their characteristics, and (2) how states plan to use the increase in CCDF funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, including addressing wait lists."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-222R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Civilian Marksmanship Program
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on certain matters related to Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-287) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Information on the Sale of Surplus Army Firearms".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense,Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on certain matters related to Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-287) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Information on the Sale of Surplus Army Firearms". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense,Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep.Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation that, among other things, instructs U.S. citizens in marksmanship; promotes practice and safety in the use of firearms; and sells surplus Army firearms (see figure), ammunition, repair parts, and other supplies. CMP is required to give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible. CMP also charges fees for individuals to participate in some of its programs.
(Figure Omitted)
The Army and CMP have established procedures to address federal requirements for the transfer and sale of surplus firearms. Both organizations established procedures to carry out the transfer of surplus Army firearms as identified in a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a 2018 Memorandum of Agreement, both between the Army and CMP. To address requirements for selling surplus firearms, CMP uses a combination of procedures, including an application requiring prospective customers to provide proof of citizenship and age, among other things, and a check against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Per the MOU, the Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command oversees the Army's costs and reimbursements from CMP for certain costs associated with storing, transporting, and administering the transfer of surplus firearms.
The primary source of CMP's revenues from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 was from the sale of surplus rifles, which, according to CMP's internal financial documents, generated $196.8 million in revenue. CMP also sold commercial ammunition and memorabilia, which, according to the same documents, generated $76.4 million in revenue. Further, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings for this time frame, CMP reported earning $49.8 million in interest and dividends from its investment account. CMP began selling surplus M1911 handguns in November 2018 and had just begun generating revenue from these sales at the time of GAO's review. The profit that CMP realized from the sales of surplus rifles could not be determined because CMP's methodology to calculate expenses did not account for all of CMP's costs associated with the sale of these rifles. GAO estimates future sales of CMP's surplus handgun and rifles currently available for sale could generate as much as $104.9 million, or enough to fund CMP's operations for several years. Further, as of September 30, 2017, CMP reported having cash of $3.6 million, and an investment account valued at $188.6 million. This could also allow CMP to continue operations for several years."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1996, the Army has transferred more than 700,000 surplus rifles and handguns to CMP. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1996 authorized CMP to sell certain types of surplus Army firearms to U.S. citizens, including M1 .30 caliber rifles. CMP reimburses the Army for the costs to prepare and transport surplus firearms to CMP.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 required the Army during fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to transfer to CMP surplus M1911 .45 caliber handguns, including not fewer than 8,000 in fiscal year 2018 and not more than 10,000 in any fiscal year, and included a provision for GAO to conduct a review of certain matters related to CMP. Among other things, GAO examined (1) the Army and CMP's procedures to address requirements governing the transfer and sale of firearms and (2) CMP's primary sources of revenue, costs and profits, and estimated future revenue associated with the sale of surplus firearms.
GAO reviewed applicable federal statutes and agreements between the Army and CMP; analyzed firearms transfer data, and CMP's Internal Revenue Service filings and internal financial documents; and visited both CMP's northern headquarters in Port Clinton, Ohio and its southern headquarters in Anniston, Alabama."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-287?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Overpayments to Service Members
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. The report (GAO-19-61) is titled "Department of Defense: Process Improvements Needed in Recouping Overpayments to Service Members".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 15. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. The report (GAO-19-61) is titled "Department of Defense: Process Improvements Needed in Recouping Overpayments to Service Members". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 15. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Key aspects of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Debt Collection Regulation--which includes rules for recoupment of service member overpayments--are incomplete or unclear. For example, the regulation requires that certain pieces of information be included in the letter notifying service members of DOD-related debts. However, we found that the letter's template in the Debt Collection Regulation is missing two of the required pieces of information, including that any portion of a debt remaining at the time of separation may be collected from the service member's final pay and allowances. Additionally, the regulation does not clearly state whether or when to suspend collection actions during the review process for service members formally disputing their debt. As a result, the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)--which carry out the regulation--do not have clear direction when administering debt collection activities, which has led to inconsistent application. Further, service members may not be fully informed of the rights and protections to which they are entitled.
GAO also found that the military services' debt collection policies and procedures do not consistently follow the DOD Debt Collection Regulation. Specifically, debt notification letters that GAO reviewed did not consistently include all 18 pieces of information required by the DOD Debt Collection Regulation. For example, letters did not explain service members' right to a written decision of a review or their right to inspect and copy records related to the debt. Further, the military services' policies and procedures often were not current, complete, or clear. As a result, some service members may not have been properly notified of their debt, their rights to dispute it, or the potential consequences of inaction, such as involuntary payroll deduction. Unless the military services and DFAS fully incorporate the DOD Debt Collection Regulation into their respective policies and procedures, service members will likely continue to receive inaccurate and incomplete information about their debts and related rights and protections."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD sometimes overpays service members due to errors in administrative processing of pay and allowances, and calculating pay and leave. Nearly 400 Debt Collection Offices in DOD are responsible for the recovery and collection of debts (see figure for basic elements of the debt collection process). DOD has acknowledged that collection actions related to overpayments have placed undue burden on service members and their families, such as financial hardship, garnished wages, and damaged credit scores.
(Figure omitted)
House Report 115-200 accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to study DOD's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. This report evaluates the extent to which (1) the DOD Debt Collection Regulation is clear, and (2) military services' and DFAS policies and procedures follow DOD Debt Collection Regulation. GAO reviewed DOD regulations on debt collection, interviewed DOD officials, and examined non-generalizable samples of debt notification letters sent to serving and separated service members between January 2016 and May 2018."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations to DOD to help ensure its debt collection regulations, policies, and procedures are clear and carried out consistently. DOD concurred with all of the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-61?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on FDIC Funds' Financial Audit
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation funds' financial audit. The report (GAO-19-295R) is titled "Financial Audit: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Funds' 2018 and 2017 Financial Statements".The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Feb. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation funds' financial audit. The report (GAO-19-295R) is titled "Financial Audit: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Funds' 2018 and 2017 Financial Statements". The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Feb.14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO found (1) the financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) Resolution Fund (FRF) as of and for the years ended December 31, 2018, and 2017, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting relevant to the DIF and to the FRF as of December 31, 2018; and (3) with respect to the DIF and to the FRF, no reportable instances of noncompliance for 2018 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested.
In commenting on a draft of this report, FDIC stated that it was pleased to receive unmodified opinions on the DIF's and the FRF's financial statements, and noted that GAO reported that FDIC had effective internal control over financial reporting and that there was no reportable noncompliance with tested provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. FDIC also stated that it recognizes the important role a strong internal control program plays in an agency achieving its mission and that it remains committed to ensuring sound financial management remains a top priority."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Section 17 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, requires GAO to annually audit the financial statements of the DIF and of the FRF. In addition, the Government Corporation Control Act requires that FDIC annually prepare and submit audited financial statements to Congress, and provides GAO authority to perform the audit. This report responds to these requirements."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-295R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Nuclear Waste
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's cleanup agreements. The report (GAO-19-207) is titled "Nuclear Waste: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Oversight of Cleanup Milestones".The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairman, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The cleanup process at the 16 sites overseen by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's cleanup agreements. The report (GAO-19-207) is titled "Nuclear Waste: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Oversight of Cleanup Milestones". The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairman, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The cleanup process at the 16 sites overseen by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Officeof Environmental Management (EM) is governed by 72 agreements and hundreds of milestones specifying actions EM is to take as it carries out its cleanup work. However, EM headquarters and site officials do not consistently track data on the milestones. EM headquarters and site officials provided GAO with different totals on the number of milestones in place at the four sites GAO selected for review. These discrepancies result from how headquarters and selected sites define and track milestones. First, not all sites make the same distinction between major (i.e., related to on-the-ground cleanup) and non-major milestones and, as a result, are not consistently reporting the same milestones to EM headquarters. Second, sites do not consistently provide EM headquarters with the most up-to-date information on the status of milestones at each site. These inconsistencies limit EM's ability to use milestones to manage the cleanup mission and monitor its progress.
EM does not accurately track met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at the four selected sites, and EM's milestone reporting to Congress is incomplete. EM sites renegotiate milestone dates before they are missed, and EM does not track the history of these changes. This is because once milestones change, sites are not required to maintain or track the original milestone dates. GAO has previously found that without a documented and consistently-applied schedule change control process, program staff may continually revise the schedule to match performance, hindering management's insight into the true performance of the project. Further, since 2011, EM has not consistently reported to Congress on the status of the milestones each year, as required, and the information it has reported is incomplete. EM reports the most recently renegotiated milestone dates with no indication of whether or how often those milestones have been missed or postponed. Since neither EM headquarters nor the sites track renegotiated milestones and their baseline dates at the sites, milestones do not provide a reliable measure of program performance.
EM officials at headquarters and selected sites have not conducted root cause analyses on missed or postponed milestones; thus, such analyses are not part of milestone negotiations. Specifically, EM has not done a complex-wide analysis of the reasons for missed or postponed milestones. Similarly, officials GAO interviewed at the four selected sites said that they were not aware of any site-wide review of why milestones were missed or postponed. Best practices for project and program management outlined in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide note the importance of identifying root causes of problems that lead to schedule delays. Additionally, in a 2015 directive, DOE emphasized the importance of conducting such analysis. Analyzing the root causes of missed or postponed milestones would better position EM to address systemic problems and consider those problems when renegotiating milestones with regulators. Without such analysis, EM and its cleanup regulators lack information to set more realistic and achievable milestones and, as a result, future milestones are likely to continue to be pushed back, further delaying the cleanup work. As GAO has reported previously, these delays lead to increases in the overall cost of the cleanup."
Why GAO Did This Study: "EM manages DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste cleanup program using compliance agreements negotiated between DOE and other federal and state agencies. Within the agreements, milestones outline cleanup work to be accomplished by specific deadlines. EM's cleanup program faces nearly $500 billion in future environmental liability, which has grown substantially.
GAO was asked to review DOE's cleanup agreements. This report examines the extent to which EM (1) tracks the milestones in cleanup agreements for EM's cleanup sites; (2) has met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at selected sites and how EM reports information; and (3) has analyzed why milestones are missed or postponed and how EM considers those reasons when renegotiating milestones.
GAO reviewed agreements and milestones at EM's 16 cleanup sites and compared information tracked by EM headquarters and these sites; interviewed officials from four selected sites (chosen for variation in location and scope of cleanup, among other factors); and reviewed EM guidance related to milestone negotiations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that EM establish a standard definition of milestones across the cleanup sites, track and report original and renegotiated milestone dates, and identify the root causes of why milestones are missed or postponed. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE agreed with three of the recommendations and partially agreed with a fourth."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-207?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Internet Privacy
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal oversight of Internet privacy. The report (GAO-19-52) is titled "Internet Privacy: Additional Federal Authority Could Enhance Consumer Protection and Provide Flexibility".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The United States does not have a comprehensive Internet privacy law governing the collection, use, and sale or other disclosure of consumers' ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal oversight of Internet privacy. The report (GAO-19-52) is titled "Internet Privacy: Additional Federal Authority Could Enhance Consumer Protection and Provide Flexibility". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The United States does not have a comprehensive Internet privacy law governing the collection, use, and sale or other disclosure of consumers'personal information. At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently has the lead in overseeing Internet privacy, using its statutory authority under the FTC Act to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices. However, to date FTC has not issued regulations for Internet privacy other than those protecting financial privacy and the Internet privacy of children, which were required by law. For FTC Act violations, FTC may promulgate regulations but is required to use procedures that differ from traditional notice-and-comment processes and that FTC staff said add time and complexity.
In the last decade, FTC has filed 101 enforcement actions regarding Internet privacy; nearly all actions resulted in settlement agreements requiring action by the companies. In most of these cases, FTC did not levy civil penalties because it lacked such authority for those particular violations. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has had a limited role in overseeing Internet privacy. From 2015 to 2017, FCC asserted jurisdiction over the privacy practices of Internet service providers. In 2016, FCC promulgated privacy rules for Internet service providers that Congress later repealed. FTC resumed privacy oversight of Internet service providers in June 2018.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed had varied views on the current Internet privacy enforcement approach and how it could be enhanced. Most Internet industry stakeholders said they favored FTC's current approach--direct enforcement of its unfair and deceptive practices statutory authority, rather than promulgating and enforcing regulations implementing that authority. These stakeholders said that the current approach allows for flexibility and that regulations could hinder innovation. Other stakeholders, including consumer advocates and most former FTC and FCC commissioners GAO interviewed, favored having FTC issue and enforce regulations. Some stakeholders said a new data-protection agency was needed to oversee consumer privacy. Stakeholders identified three main areas in which Internet privacy oversight could be enhanced:
* Statute. Some stakeholders told GAO that an overarching Internet privacy statute could enhance consumer protection by clearly articulating to consumers, industry, and agencies what behaviors are prohibited.
* Rulemaking . Some stakeholders said that regulations can provide clarity, enforcement fairness, and flexibility. Officials from two other consumer protection agencies said their rulemaking authority assists in their oversight efforts and works together with enforcement actions.
* Civil penalty authority. Some stakeholders said FTC's Internet privacy enforcement could be more effective with authority to levy civil penalties for first-time violations of the FTC Act.
Comprehensive Internet privacy legislation that establishes specific standards and includes traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking and broader civil penalty authority could enhance the federal government's ability to protect consumer privacy."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In April 2018, Facebook disclosed that a Cambridge University researcher may have improperly shared the data of up to 87 million of its users with a political consulting firm. This disclosure followed other recent incidents involving the misuse of consumers' personal information from the Internet, which is used by about three-quarters of Americans. GAO was asked to review federal oversight of Internet privacy. This report addresses, among other objectives: (1) how FTC and FCC have overseen consumers' Internet privacy and (2) selected stakeholders' views on the strengths and limitations of how Internet privacy currently is overseen and how, if it all, this approach could be enhanced.
GAO evaluated FTC and FCC Internet privacy enforcement actions and authorities and interviewed representatives from industry, consumer advocacy groups, and academia; FTC and FCC staff; former FTC and FCC commissioners; and officials from other federal oversight agencies. Industry stakeholders were selected to represent different sectors, and academics were selected because of their expertise in privacy, consumer protection, and regulatory issues."
What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider developing comprehensive legislation on Internet privacy that would enhance consumer protections and provide flexibility to address a rapidly evolving Internet environment. Issues that should be considered include what authorities agencies should have in order to oversee Internet privacy, including appropriate rulemaking authority."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-52?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military Courts
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense currently facilitates public access to proceedings. The report (GAO-19-283) is titled "Military Courts: DOD Should Assess the Tradeoffs Associated With Expanding Public Access to and Information About Terrorism Trials".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense currently facilitates public access to proceedings. The report (GAO-19-283) is titled "Military Courts: DOD Should Assess the Tradeoffs Associated With Expanding Public Access to and Information About Terrorism Trials". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed ServicesCommittee, on Feb. 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) currently facilitates public access to and information about military commissions' proceedings at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay (NSGB) in Cuba by:
- communicating directly with victims and their family members about hearings;
- enabling selected members of the public to view proceedings in-person;
- providing five sites in the United States to view proceedings remotely via closed circuit television (CCTV); and
- making information such as court documents available on the Office of Military Commissions' website.
The public faces various challenges in gaining access to military commissions' proceedings or obtaining information about them. First, some aspects of the proceedings limit public access, but addressing them is largely outside of DOD's control. For example, proceedings, by law, are held on NSGB--a location that is largely inaccessible to the general public. Further, cases currently before the military commissions have spent 4-10 years in pre-trial hearings with trials yet to be scheduled, which some suggest has lessened media coverage and public visibility. Second, there are other challenges that DOD officials have acknowledged that they have a greater ability to address. For example, the courtroom gallery is limited to 52 seats for those permitted to travel to NSGB. Additionally, all five CCTV sites are located within a span of 600 miles on the East Coast of the United States. However, victims and their family members--the primary intended users of these sites--often live a significant distance from these locations.
A number of options may potentially address some of the public access challenges identified. DOD could potentially expand the viewing gallery to accommodate more people as part of an ongoing project to renovate the NSGB courtroom. However, DOD officials cautioned that it would require a commensurate increase in the lodging needed to house more visitors, which may not be supported by current levels of resources. Further, DOD has two potential options for addressing challenges with the remote viewing of proceedings. First, DOD could potentially increase the number and geographic dispersion of CCTV sites. Second, DOD could potentially maximize public access by broadcasting proceedings via the television or internet. DOD officials acknowledged that both options are possible and likely would require a relatively small outlay of resources. However, broadcasting proceedings via the television or internet is currently prohibited by DOD's regulation, and DOD officials were especially concerned with the security implications of this option.
DOD has not assessed the tradeoffs nor identified or analyzed the risks of options for expanding public access to military commissions' proceedings. Consequently, DOD has not developed a strategy to address challenges or identified the resources needed to achieve its public access goals. Until DOD does so, it cannot be sure that it is meeting its goal of maximizing public access and may not be prepared for the potential increased demand for public access that is anticipated when proceedings move into the trial phase."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD is in the pre-trial phase of the military commissions' proceedings it is conducting to try the alleged perpetrators of terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and September 11, 2001. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 specifies that proceedings shall be publicly held unless the judge makes findings that justify a closed session, such as national security concerns.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to study the feasibility and advisability of expanding access to commissions' proceedings that are open to the public. This report describes (1) how DOD currently facilitates public access to proceedings; (2) challenges the public faces in gaining access to or obtaining information on proceedings; and (3) what is known about potential options to address public access challenges, including any related tradeoffs. GAO analyzed relevant laws and guidance; conducted a non-generalizable survey that received responses from 248 victims of terrorist attacks and their family members; collected data from DOD's website to analyze timeliness of court document postings; and interviewed relevant DOD officials and other government and non-government stakeholders."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD identify and analyze the risks associated with potential options for expanding public access to proceedings, and develop a strategy, as appropriate, for how it will meet its public access goals with the expected increase in public interest. DOD concurred with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-283?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Contractor Business Systems
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. The report (GAO-19-212) is titled "Contractor Business Systems: DOD Needs Better Information to Monitor and Assess Review Process".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. The report (GAO-19-212) is titled "Contractor Business Systems: DOD Needs Better Information to Monitor and Assess Review Process". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommitteeon Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, on Feb. 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented several changes to its processes for reviewing contractor business systems--which include systems such as accounting, estimating, and purchasing. Among other changes, DOD:
- clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)--the two agencies that are responsible for conducting the reviews;
- clarified timeframes for business system reviews and established criteria for business systems; and
- withheld payments from contractors that were found to have significant deficiencies in their business systems.
DOD does not have a mechanism to monitor and ensure that these reviews are being conducted in a timely manner. For its part, DCAA has conducted few business system audits since 2013, as it focused its efforts on other types of audits. DCAA plans to significantly increase the number of business system audits over the next 4 years, but its success in doing so depends on its ability to shift resources from other audits; to use public accounting firms to conduct other, non-business system audits; and DCAA staff's ability to execute new audit plans in a timely manner.
DCMA relies on the three offices responsible for conducting DCMA-led reviews to manage the reviews, but DCMA does not formally monitor whether these reviews are being conducted consistent with policy nor does it monitor DCAA's efforts to complete the audits for which it is responsible. DCMA is ultimately responsible for approving a contractor's business systems. DCMA currently lacks a mechanism based on relevant and reliable information, such as the number of reviews that are outstanding and the resources available to conduct such reviews, to ensure reviews are being completed in a timely fashion. Such information could help inform more strategic oversight on whether the current review process is achieving its intended results, or whether additional changes to the timing of or criteria for conducting reviews are needed.:
Why GAO Did This Study: "Contractor business systems produce critical data that contracting officers use to help negotiate and manage defense contracts. These systems and their related internal controls act as important safeguards against fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funding. Federal and defense acquisition regulations and DOD policies require that DOD take steps to review the adequacy of certain business systems, but GAO and other oversight entities have raised questions about the sufficiency and consistency of DOD's review process.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 contained a provision for GAO to evaluate how DOD implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. Among other things, this report examines (1) the changes DOD made to its review process and (2) the extent to which DOD is ensuring timely business system reviews.
GAO analyzed DOD acquisition regulations, policies, and procedures for conducting contractor business system reviews and analyzed data on reviews conducted between fiscal years 2013 and 2018."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DCMA, in collaboration with DCAA, develop a mechanism to monitor and ensure contractor business system reviews are conducted in a timely fashion. DOD concurred with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-212?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Presidential Security
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-246) is titled "Presidential Security: Vetting of Individuals and Secure Areas at Mar-a-Lago".The report was sent to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-246) is titled "Presidential Security: Vetting of Individuals and Secure Areas at Mar-a-Lago". The report was sent to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse,D-Rhode Island, and Rep. Ted W. Lieu, D-California, on Jan. 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Secret Service (Secret Service) vets individuals differently depending on the person's expected proximity to the President when he travels, including during his visits to Mar-a-Lago. According to Secret Service officials, vetting may include using physical screening (measures to detect physical threats to the president and secure the property) and background checks intended to identify individuals who have prior criminal activity or present other types of threats. Individuals at Mar-a-Lago who are not expected to meet with the President or enter spaces the President may visit pass through an outer layer of security consisting of physical screening checkpoints surrounding the property. The Secret Service physically screens all individuals who will access areas where the President will be present, such as a dining room. According to Secret Service officials, individuals who have a meeting with the President generally undergo both physical screening and enhanced background checks.
The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Secret Service coordinate to establish and secure several areas that are suitable for handling classified information when the President travels to Mar-a-Lago. These areas include a conference center, spaces used by staff of the National Security Council and the Executive Office of the President, and presidential transportation vehicles. Details associated with these areas and facilities are sensitive and have been omitted from this report.
The Secret Service and DOD are subject to regulations that govern the reimbursement of employees for official travel expenses. Both organizations have processes to review these travel-related expenses when their personnel travel with the President and try to acquire lodging at the General Services Administration's per diem lodging rate. When the Secret Service is not able to acquire rooms at the per diem lodging rate, including when it needs rooms for operational purposes that exceed 300 percent of the per diem rate (a threshold set by the General Services Administration), employees must submit a waiver request. DOD personnel must also obtain approval when costs exceed the General Services Administration's lodging rate. Our review of DOD vouchers and Secret Service documentation confirmed that personnel did not exceed the 300 percent threshold for lodging during the Mar-a-Lago trips examined in this review. We assessed the costs of Presidential travel in a separate report."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The President has made numerous trips to the Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, during which he met with foreign leaders and conducted presidential activities.
GAO was asked to review the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. This report provides information on, "among other things, (1) vetting of individuals expected to be near the President; (2) efforts to establish secure areas for handling classified information; and (3) regulations and processes for agency expenditures on employees who travel with the President. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in October 2018. Information that the Secret Service and DOD deemed sensitive has been omitted.
GAO analyzed laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; reviewed agreements between federal agencies and trip after-action reports; and interviewed DOD and Secret Service officials. GAO also reviewed vouchers from the four presidential trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3, 2017 through March 5, 2017.GAO also reviewed documentation and descriptions of specific security practices with DOD and Secret Service officials. The Executive Office of the President has not responded to requests regarding its role in assisting DOD and the Secret Service in carrying out their responsibilities."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-246?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Unmanned Aerial Systems
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on career advancement for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft pilots compared to other pilots. The report (GAO-19-155) is titled "Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on career advancement for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft pilots compared to other pilots. The report (GAO-19-155) is titled "Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ArmedServices Committee, on Feb. 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The promotion rates for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) pilots have been generally similar to those of other pilots since 2013 and have increased over time. See figure below for promotion rates from major to lieutenant colonel. Air Force officials stated that RPA pilot promotion rates increased because the creation of a dedicated career field resulted in more competitive candidates.
(Figure omitted)
Note: The Air Force held two promotion boards in 2006 noted as "A" and "B," for major to lieutenant colonel.
Since 2013, over 75 percent of non-operational staff positions requiring RPA pilot expertise were assigned to various organizations within the Air Force, according to GAO's analysis. These positions carry out support and other noncombat-related activities as well as training functions and are essential to the development of officers. However, the overall number of these positions that require a RPA pilot is about one-tenth of the combined number of those requiring other pilots. For example, in fiscal year 2018, 83 non-operational staff positions required RPA pilots compared to 330 requiring fighter pilots. Air Force officials stated that the small number of RPA positions is because the career field is new.
The Air Force has not reviewed its oversight process to ensure that it is efficiently managing its non-operational staff positions that require aviator expertise. Air Force officials explained that over the last 10 years, the Air Force reduced the number of squadrons but had not reviewed the number of non-operational staff positions. Similarly, the Air Force has had no widely accessible oversight process to monitor whether it had established an accurate number of non-operational staff positions required to support the new RPA career field. In August 2018, the Air Force identified 513 non-operational staff positions (out of 2,783) as needing further review because they lacked adequate justification of the need for aviator expertise. Officials described the process for managing these positions as time and labor intensive, which can cause delays in obtaining reliable information needed to inform decision-making. By reviewing this process, the Air Force may be able to identify opportunities to create efficiencies and more effectively manage its non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise."
Why GAO Did This Study: "An increasing number of Air Force missions use unmanned aerial systems, or RPAs, to provide their specialized capabilities in support of combat operations. The demand for crew members for these systems has grown rapidly. For example, RPA pilot requirements increased by 76 percent since fiscal year 2013 while those for fighter pilots stayed about the same. These requirements include pilots who serve in non-operational staff positions, such as trainers.
Senate Report 115-125 included a provision that GAO review career advancement for Air Force RPA pilots compared to other pilots. This report, among other things, describes (1) the rates that RPA and other pilots were promoted; (2) the rates that non-operational staff positions requiring RPA pilot expertise were assigned to various organizations, and (3) the extent to which the Air Force has reviewed its oversight process to effectively manage non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise.
Among other things, GAO analyzed Air Force pilot promotion data from 2006-2017. GAO also analyzed non-operational staff position data from fiscal years 2013-2018 and interviewed officials regarding the management and oversight of these positions."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Air Force review its oversight process for managing the non-operational staff positions, including those for RPA pilots, to identify opportunities to increase efficiencies. DOD concurred with this recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-155?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Foreign Military Sales
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. The report (GAO-19-214) is titled "Foreign Military Sales: Observations on DOD's Approach to Developing Price and Availability Estimates for Foreign Customers".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. The report (GAO-19-214) is titled "Foreign Military Sales: Observations on DOD's Approach to Developing Price and Availability Estimates for Foreign Customers". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the SenateForeign Relations Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on Feb. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) reported receiving 3,038 requests for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) price and availability data in fiscal years 2014 through 2018 from 93 countries across six geographic regions, as shown in the figure. Foreign customer requests included services and items such as training and support services for weapon systems, missiles, aircraft, and communication equipment.
(Figure Omitted)
DOD officials indicated they generally strove to offer price and availability data that reflected rough order of magnitude estimates of total anticipated costs for a complete and sustainable capability. Contractors often provide input to DOD for these cost and schedule estimates. In the five examples GAO reviewed, DOD officials considered factors such as possible production delays and included anticipated costs for support services, operations, and sustainment, when needed. DOD officials also included FMS administrative charges and, as applicable, nonrecurring and transportation costs. GAO found that when DOD considered these factors in developing the response to the customer, at times, they made adjustments to the estimates provided by contractors to more fully reflect expected costs if the items are purchased.
Among the five examples, GAO found that response times ranged from 45 to 320 days and that a number of factors can affect timeliness. For example, the complexity of the system or capability the customer is interested in acquiring may require involvement from multiple program offices and defense contractors, requiring more time than the 45 days suggested by DOD's guidance."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD manages the procurement of billions of dollars in defense items and services on behalf of foreign customers through the FMS program. These sales help support the defense industrial base and are vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.
The FMS process generally begins with a request by a foreign government for information about a U.S. defense item or service. Requests for price and availability data are an optional step in the process. DOD guidance is to generally respond to such requests within 45 days.
The fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review DOD's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. This report addresses, among other objectives, (1) price and availability requests DOD received from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, (2) how DOD develops price and availability data, and (3) the factors that can influence the timeliness of DOD's responses to foreign customers with price and availability data.
GAO analyzed DOD price and availability data for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the latest data available; and reviewed documents for a non-generalizable sample of five price and availability responses--varying by estimate value--provided to foreign customers by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. GAO also interviewed defense contractors and DOD officials.
GAO is not making any recommendations at this time."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-214?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Management
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on information on the Department of Defense's progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in fiscals 2014-2017. The report (GAO-19-245R) is titled "Defense Management: Status of GAO Recommendations Made to the Department of Defense (Fiscal Years 2014-2017)".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on information on the Department of Defense's progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in fiscals 2014-2017. The report (GAO-19-245R) is titled "Defense Management: Status of GAO Recommendations Made to the Department of Defense (Fiscal Years 2014-2017)". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the HouseArmed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Overall, as of November 2018 the Department of Defense's (DOD) implementation of GAO's recommendations had improved from the prior year. GAO measures implementation of recommendations by calculating the percentage of recommendations implemented after 4 years. For example, the implementation rate for fiscal year (FY) 2018 is the percentage of recommendations made in FY 2014 that were implemented by the end of FY 2018. In November 2017, DODs implementation rate was 53 percent; 1 year later, it had increased to 67 percent. However, by comparison, the government-wide implementation of GAO recommendations was 77 percent, as of November 2018.
For the time period assessed (fiscal years 2014-2017), GAO found that, as of September 30, 2018, it had made a total of 1,122 recommendations to DOD in unclassified, classified (SECRET), and sensitive but unclassified reports issued in fiscal years 2014-2017. Of these 1,122 recommendations, 464 were implemented (about 41 percent), 63 were closed by GAO as not implemented (about 6 percent), and 595 remained open (about 53 percent). Further, of the 546 unclassified recommendations made to DOD during this same period that were still open, DOD concurred with 359 (about 66 percent), partially concurred with 137 (about 25 percent), and non-concurred with 50 (about 9 percent). Finally, GAO designated 68 recommendations from this period as priority recommendations. Priority recommendations are those recommendations that GAO believes warrant priority attention from heads of key departments and agencies. As of September 30, 2018, 18 (about 26 percent) priority recommendations had been implemented, 2 (about 3 percent) had been closed by GAO as not implemented because DOD actions had made these recommendations no longer applicable, and 48 (about 71 percent) remained open. Detailed information on the status of unclassified recommendations can be obtained at https://www.gao.gov/recommendations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO's mission is to support the Congress, and in accomplishing that mission GAO makes recommendations to improve the accountability, operations, and services of government agencies. From 2002 through 2018, GAOs work resulted in over $895 billion in financial benefits and about 21,600 program and operational benefits that helped change laws, improved public safety and other services, and promoted better management throughout the government, including at DOD.
Conference Report 115-404 accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to submit to the Congressional Armed Services Committees a briefing summarizing an assessment of open recommendations made to DOD in fiscal years (FY) 2014 through 2017. This report summarizes information on DODs (1) progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in FYs 2014-2017; (2) initial response to GAOs open recommendations; and (3) progress in implementing priority recommendations. For all recommendations made to DOD in unclassified, classified (SECRET and below), and sensitive but unclassified GAO reports issued in FY 2014 through FY 2017, GAO reviewed reports and interviewed or corresponded with cognizant DOD officials to obtain information on DODs efforts to implement the recommendations, and based on information collected, determined the implementation status of each recommendation."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO did not make any recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-245R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military Personnel
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. The report (GAO-19-160) is titled "Military Personnel: Strategy Needed to Improve Retention of Experienced Air Force Aircraft Maintainers".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. The report (GAO-19-160) is titled "Military Personnel: Strategy Needed to Improve Retention of Experienced Air Force Aircraft Maintainers". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts ofsummaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Air Force has reduced overall aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, but continues to have a gap of experienced maintainers. The Air Force reduced the overall gap between actual maintainer staffing levels and authorized levels from 4,016 maintainers (out of 66,439 authorized active component positions) in fiscal year 2015, to 745 in fiscal year 2017 (out of 66,559 positions). However, in 7 of the last 8 fiscal years, the Air Force had staffing gaps of experienced maintainers--those who are most qualified to meet mission needs and are needed to train new maintainers. Maintainers complete technical school as 3-levels and initially lack the experience and proficiency needed to meet mission needs. Following years of on-the-job training, among other things, maintainers upgrade to the 5- and 7-levels. In fiscal year 2017, the Air Force had gaps of more than 2,000 5-level and 400 7-level maintainers, and a surplus of over 1,700 3-levels. Air Force officials anticipate that staffing gaps will continue off and on through fiscal year 2023.
Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force has increasingly lost experienced aircraft maintainers, and it does not have goals and a strategy to help retain maintainers. While overall maintainer loss rates have remained generally stable, loss rates of 5-levels increased from 9 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 12 percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (see figure). Air Force officials expect 7-level loss rates to also increase. Air Force officials stated that they need to retain more maintainers to help address experience gaps, but the Air Force has not developed annual retention goals for maintainers. In addition, while the Air Force has increased its use of retention bonuses since fiscal year 2015, according to Air Force officials, it does not have a strategy to improve retention. Without goals to measure progress and a retention strategy to guide efforts, the Air Force could face further challenges in managing its maintenance workforce, including ensuring there are enough experienced maintainers to meet mission needs.
(Figure omitted)
The Air Force consistently met technical school completion rate goals for aircraft maintainers from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. In fiscal year 2017, about 9,600 active component maintainers completed technical school, an increase from about 5,700 in fiscal year 2015. This increase in completions has helped to address overall staffing gaps, but cannot immediately resolve experience imbalances, due to the time and training needed to reach the 5- and 7- levels."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Air Force aircraft maintainers are responsible for ensuring that the Air Force's aircraft are operationally ready and safe for its aviators--duties critical to successfully executing its national security mission. With more than 100,000 maintainers across the Air Force's active and reserve components, according to Air Force officials, aircraft maintenance is the Air Force's largest enlisted career field--accounting for about a quarter of its active duty enlisted personnel.
The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. This report assesses the extent to which, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the Air Force (1) had aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, (2) experienced attrition of maintainers and took steps to help retain maintainers, and (3) met its annual technical school completion rate goals for maintainers.
GAO analyzed aircraft maintainer staffing levels, loss and reenlistment rates, and technical school completion rates from fiscal years 2010-2017, the most recent data available; conducted five non-generalizable discussion groups with maintainers; and interviewed aviation industry, Department of Defense, and Air Force officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Air Force develop annual retention goals and a retention strategy for aircraft maintainers. The Air Force concurred with both recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-160?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Presidential Travel
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-178) is titled "Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress".The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-178) is titled "Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress". The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings,D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO estimated that federal agencies incurred costs of about $13.6 million for the President's four trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3 through March 5, 2017. This estimate consisted of approximately $10.6 million for operating costs of government aircraft and boats and $3 million for temporary duty costs of government personnel supporting the President's travel, including transportation, lodging, and meals and incidental expenses. These figures do not include certain classified cost information or the salaries and benefits of government personnel traveling with the President because, salaries and benefits would be paid regardless of whether the President was traveling.
(Figure omitted)
Note: Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding.
The United States Secret Service (Secret Service) incurred about $396,000, primarily for temporary duty costs, while protecting Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump during three international trips taken in January and February 2017. Eric Trump traveled to Uruguay and the Dominican Republic and Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and their spouses traveled to the United Arab Emirates. Documentation provided by Secret Service officials confirmed that the Trumps and their spouses flew on commercial aircraft. Officials from the 89th Airlift Wing confirmed that no military aircraft supported these trips. Secret Service agents protecting the Trump family flew by commercial aircraft.
GAO found that, of the three agencies required to report by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, only the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) reported protection costs semiannually to Congress for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. GAO found that the Secret Service does not have a policy for ensuring that the semiannual reports are prepared and has not consistently submitted the reports. Secret Service officials last submitted reports in fiscal year 2015 and were unaware that reports had not been submitted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 until GAO requested this information. GAO also found that the Department of Defense (DOD) has a policy but did not produce and submit the reports as required. Moreover, weaknesses in DOD's existing policy and instruction do not clearly establish the responsibility for preparing and reporting the costs incurred to support protection activities. Absent clear policies with an oversight mechanism to ensure that the reports are produced, Congress has not been provided required information concerning the costs for providing protective services for the President and others."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and his family, including adult children when they travel. The Secret Service can request assistance in its mission from other agencies, such as DOD and the Coast Guard. When the President travels, he must fly on DOD aircraft.
GAO was asked to review the travel- related costs for four trips that the President took to Mar-a-Lago and three trips that the President's adult children made to certain overseas destinations. This report examines (1) the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago, (2) the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with certain overseas trips taken by Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump, and (3) the extent to which the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and DOD have reported their costs pursuant to the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976. GAO analyzed agency cost data in connection with the President's travel to Mar-a-Lago and the President's adult children's trips to certain overseas locations. GAO also reviewed the law, agency guidance, and semiannual reports related to the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making recommendations to the Secret Service and DOD to ensure that the reports required under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, are prepared and submitted. The Department of Homeland Security and DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-178?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Offshore Oil Spills
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response, restoration and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. The report (GAO-19-31) is titled "Offshore Oil Spills: Restoration and Federal Research Efforts Continue, but Opportunities to Improve Coordination Remain".The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The trustee councils, composed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response, restoration and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. The report (GAO-19-31) is titled "Offshore Oil Spills: Restoration and Federal Research Efforts Continue, but Opportunities to Improve Coordination Remain". The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The trustee councils, composedof federal and state members, have used portions of the restoration trust funds from the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlements to restore natural resources. From October 1992 to January 2018, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council used about 86 percent of the fund's roughly $1 billion, primarily on habitat protection and restoration of damaged natural resources. According to the council, all but 5 of the 32 natural resources and human services identified as damaged by the spill have recovered or are recovering. The health of Pacific herring is one example of a resource that has not yet recovered. Further, the presence of lingering oil remains a concern almost 30 years after the spill. In May 2018, GAO accompanied trustee council researchers to the spill area and observed the excavation of three pits that revealed lingering oil roughly 6 inches below the surface of the beach, as captured in the photo below. The Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council finalized a programmatic restoration plan in 2016; four trustee implementation groups have since issued initial restoration plans for designated restoration areas, and three anticipate issuing restoration plans in 2019 or later. From April 2012 to December 2017, the council used 13 percent of the at least $8.1 billion restoration trust fund, mostly on habitat protection, enhancing recreation, and marine wildlife and fishery restoration.
(Photo omitted)
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which was enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (interagency committee) to coordinate oil pollution research among federal agencies and with relevant external entities, among other things. However according to the trustee council members that manage the restoration trust funds, the committee does not coordinate with the trustee councils and some were not aware that the interagency committee existed. The research of the member agencies could be relevant to the trustee councils' work on restoration. By coordinating directly with the trustee councils, the interagency committee could ensure better knowledge sharing between groups and leverage its member agencies' resources to inform and support the work of the councils."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills are two of the largest offshore oil spills in U.S. history, causing long-lasting damage to marine and coastal resources. OPA includes provisions to prevent and respond to such oil spills by authorizing (1) federal-state trustee councils that manage billions of dollars from legal settlements and (2) an interagency committee to coordinate oil pollution research, among other things.
GAO was asked to review the federal government's response, restoration, and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. This report examines, among other things, (1) how the trustee councils have used the restoration trust funds and the status of restoration and (2) the interagency committee's coordination of oil spill research efforts.
GAO reviewed the councils' plans for the funds and how they were used, federal funding of oil spill research by member agencies, and key laws. Also, GAO evaluated the coordination of such efforts against a leading collaboration practice. GAO interviewed members of the trustee councils and the interagency committee."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends, among other things, that the interagency committee coordinate with the trustee councils to support their work and research needs. The agency agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-31?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Medicaid Coverage of Abortions
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to abortion access. The report (GAO-19-159) is titled "Medicaid: CMS Action Needed to Ensure Compliance with Abortion Coverage Requirements".The report was sent to Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, on Jan. 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Women could face various challenges accessing abortions depending on where they live, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to abortion access. The report (GAO-19-159) is titled "Medicaid: CMS Action Needed to Ensure Compliance with Abortion Coverage Requirements". The report was sent to Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, on Jan. 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Women could face various challenges accessing abortions depending on where they live, andMedicaid beneficiaries may face additional challenges in some states. GAO identified seven key factors that could pose challenges to women accessing abortions, based on its interviews with providers and review of the literature: gestational limits, mandatory counseling, out-of-pocket costs, parental involvement requirements, provider availability, stigma and harassment, and waiting period requirements. The presence of these factors and their effect on abortion access--such as delays in care or increased costs--varied by state.
GAO also found that state variation in Medicaid abortion coverage and payment requirements could further complicate access for program beneficiaries. State Medicaid programs are generally required to cover abortions and can seek federal funding for such coverage when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. States may also cover abortions under other circumstances, but federal funds may not be used. In GAO's survey, one state reported not covering abortions in cases of rape or incest, and 14 states reported not covering the drug used in medical abortions, which they are generally required to cover if the abortion is otherwise eligible for federal funding. Officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees Medicaid, were unaware that these states were not covering the drug, and thus, have not taken any actions to address states' non-compliance.
Federal information on the number of abortions eligible for federal Medicaid funding is incomplete, limiting CMS's ability to ensure proper payments and states' coverage of such abortions. For example, the form CMS-64, which states use to report Medicaid expenditures, does not collect information on the number of abortions paid for by managed care--the delivery system serving most Medicaid beneficiaries. It also does not include this information from 8 states that GAO identified as incorrectly reporting abortion costs on the form. While also not complete, state information reported in GAO's survey was more comprehensive, and showed a wide range in the number of abortions eligible for federal funding covered across the 42 states that reported such information."
Why GAO Did This Study: "While federal law prohibits federal funding for abortions in most circumstances, state Medicaid programs are required to cover abortions in limited circumstances. CMS is responsible for monitoring state compliance with federal requirements. However, concerns have been raised about challenges women may face obtaining Medicaid coverage for abortions eligible for federal funding, as well as with abortion access more broadly.
GAO was asked to review issues related to abortion access. This report examines (1) factors that may present challenges to women, including Medicaid beneficiaries, accessing abortions; and (2) federal and state information on the number of abortions eligible for federal Medicaid funding. GAO reviewed federal laws, regulations, and data sources; surveyed and received responses from Medicaid program officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; conducted a literature review; and interviewed CMS officials and eight abortion providers selected based on factors such as variation in Medicaid abortion coverage and geography."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to CMS to ensure state compliance with federal requirements for Medicaid abortion coverage, including coverage of the drug used for medical abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-159?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on K-12 Education
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges the Department of Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs. The report (GAO-19-266R) is titled "K-12 Education: Challenges to Assessing Program Performance and Recent Efforts to Address Them".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO identified four key challenges the Department of Education (Education) ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges the Department of Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs. The report (GAO-19-266R) is titled "K-12 Education: Challenges to Assessing Program Performance and Recent Efforts to Address Them". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO identified four key challenges the Department of Education (Education)faces in assessing K-12 program performance. Education has taken steps to mitigate these performance assessment challenges, which could improve transparency and understanding about the extent to which Educations K-12 programs are achieving their goals. Ongoing efforts to address challenges may prove particularly important given the changing education landscape under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Oversight and monitoring. Weaknesses in Education's internal controls have hindered its oversight and monitoring of grantees and its assessments of K-12 program performance. In April 2017, GAO reported that Education's oversight of discretionary grants monitoring was limited. Some offices, including the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, did not consistently document required monitoring activities in official grant files. GAO recommended that Education establish and implement written supervisory review procedures for official grant files. In response, Education officials said they are developing a standard operating procedure for maintaining official grant records, which they plan to issue in early 2019.
Data quality. Persistent quality issues with K-12 data that grantees submit to Education have limited Education's ability to use those data to assess performance. In April 2017, GAO reported that Education lacks reasonable assurance that data submitted by grantees for its 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant program are accurate, and that these data may not be useful for decision making and reporting. GAO recommended that Education check the accuracy of federal-level data submitted by grantees. In response, Education officials said they modified and improved the agency's data system to perform these types of checks and reduce errors.
Capacity. Education's ability to oversee and monitor grantees, collect and report quality data, and use performance assessment information in decision making is directly related to its capacity and organizational resources. According to Education officials, capacity has been and remains a challenge to assessing K-12 program performance. In its 2016 report on the Rural Education Achievement Program, Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that Education's inadequate monitoring of program grantees was partly due to its limited human capital capacity. In response, Education requested additional staff and implemented a risk-based approach for selecting grantees to monitor, according to Education officials cited in the OIG report.
Methodological limitations. Education has faced methodological limitations assessing program performance, including difficulties assessing the benefits of flexible grant programs, isolating program impact, and measuring long-term outcomes. Education officials told GAO that these types of methodological challenges are difficult to address, although Education has taken steps to mitigate them. For example, GAO reported in May 2014 on the difficulty Education faces in evaluating the effectiveness of the Promise Neighborhoods program in part because the program provides certain flexibilities to grantees. Partly in response to GAO's recommendation that Education develop a plan to conduct a national evaluation of the program, Education awarded a contract in fiscal year 2018 to develop options for evaluating the program's effect on student outcomes. In November 2018, Education officials stated that they intend to award a new contract in late fiscal year 2019 to evaluate the effectiveness of the program nationwide."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Education plays a key role in supporting educational opportunities for K-12 students, including awarding grants and overseeing compliance with federal education laws. However, questions have been raised about how Education assesses program performance. Both GAO and Education's OIG have reported on various management and oversight issues related to Educations program performance. GAO was asked to review Education's K-12 program performance assessment activities and related barriers. This report describes challenges Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs, as well as steps it has taken to address them.
To identify challenges to program performance assessment and learn about how Education addressed these challenges, GAO examined documents from Education, reviewed prior GAO work on government-wide performance assessment activities and Education's K-12 programs, and interviewed Education officials. To identify specific examples of K-12 programs that illustrate each of the challenges, GAO reviewed prior related GAO reports and relevant Education OIG reports and considered the views of Education officials. Although these examples are not generalizable, they reflect a variety of K-12 programs and show a range of Education's actions in response to the challenges. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-266R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on National Nuclear Security Administration
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's progress toward implementing common financial reporting. The report (GAO-19-101) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Collect Common Financial Data".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's progress toward implementing common financial reporting. The report (GAO-19-101) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Collect Common Financial Data". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriationssubcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)--a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy (DOE)--and Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS)--the management and operating (M&O) contractor for the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant (Pantex) in Texas--implemented a consolidated business system for the two sites. CNS, NNSA, and DOE generally followed DOE guidance as well as leading project management and information technology investment practices for three areas of project management that may be useful in identifying problems that can arise after a system is implemented. Specifically, they (1) developed required plans and documents to support critical decisions on information technology projects, (2) generally followed leading practices for risk management, and (3) initiated a review by the investment review board during the system's operations and maintenance phase.
With regard to NNSA's broader effort to implement common financial reporting across its eight sites, GAO found that NNSA's progress on seven key implementation steps has varied (see table). For example, NNSA is not pursuing an important step to implement a common work breakdown structure--a method of dividing a project into successive levels of detail--as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (the act). All of NNSA's program offices had not accepted a common work breakdown structure, in part because program office leaders do not agree one is needed. According to GAO leading practices, not doing so causes difficulty in comparing costs across programs and contractors, which is the purpose of common financial reporting. Without pursuing this approach, the effort may not result in reliable, enterprise-wide financial data that meets the needs of Congress and improves NNSA's ability to report the total costs of its programs.
(Table omitted)
In addition, NNSA generally has not followed six project management leading practices, including one that emphasizes the importance of collecting and documenting stakeholder requirements to define project scope. NNSA officials said the act included the basic requirements and project scope, and therefore stakeholders only needed to provide input on how to meet requirements in the act rather than identify their own; this input was not documented. However, the act did not provide specific or detailed requirements. Without collecting and documenting stakeholder requirements, NNSA will not have assurances that data will meet stakeholder needs, which could limit the effectiveness of the effort."
Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO has identified challenges in determining and comparing costs across NNSA's eight sites. Congress needs this information to carry out its oversight responsibilities and make budgetary decisions. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 required NNSA to implement a common financial reporting system across all sites. Separately, in 2013, NNSA awarded a single M&O contract for the Y-12 and Pantex sites, which included a requirement to consolidate the two sites' business systems.
An explanatory statement accompanying the act included a provision for GAO to review the agency's progress. This report examines (1) the status of the effort to consolidate the business systems at Y-12 and Pantex and the extent to which CNS and NNSA followed guidance and leading practices, and (2) the steps NNSA has taken in implementing common financial reporting across all eight sites and the extent to which this effort follows leading practices. GAO reviewed documentation for both efforts and compared it with leading practices, and interviewed NNSA officials and M&O contractors."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that NNSA should implement a common work breakdown structure and should follow leading practices to collect and document requirements to define project scope. NNSA generally agreed with six recommendations and neither agreed nor disagreed with one. GAO maintains that the recommendations are valid."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-101?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Prepositioned Stocks
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense' implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. The report (GAO-19-244) is titled "Prepositioned Stocks: DOD Needs Joint Oversight of the Military Services' Programs".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense' implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. The report (GAO-19-244) is titled "Prepositioned Stocks: DOD Needs Joint Oversight of the Military Services' Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith,D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense's (DOD) implementation plan for managing the military services' prepositioned stock programs does not fully address four of the seven elements required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014. For example, DOD's plan did not include all information required by the NDAA, such as a complete list of the services' programs, information on how DOD would pursue key initiatives, or the resources required to implement the plan. DOD officials told GAO that they developed a plan without detail to allow the services to determine for themselves how to implement their programs. However, absent an implementation plan that fully addresses NDAA requirements, DOD continues to provide incomplete information to Congress on the department's prepositioned stock programs.
Since 2011 when Congress required DOD to take action and since 2005 when GAO first reported on the issue, DOD has not fully implemented a joint oversight approach for managing prepositioned stock programs (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
DOD's recent approach for implementing joint oversight has been to update guidance documents and develop other efforts, such as a working group, but the services continue to manage their programs with little joint oversight. Without taking steps to fully implement joint oversight, including providing detailed information on how to achieve this in guidance and reviewing other efforts, DOD's management will continue to be fragmented and it risks duplication and inefficiencies among the services' programs. Moreover, updating Congress on DOD's progress would help assure decision makers that DOD intends to follow their direction in establishing joint oversight of prepositioned stock programs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The military services preposition stocks worth billions of dollars at strategic locations around the world to provide U.S. forces with critical assets before supply chains have been established. In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, DOD emphasized that prepositioned stocks provide key logistical support for the department's missions. For many years, GAO has identified the potential for duplication among the military services' prepositioned stock programs due to a fragmented management approach and limited joint oversight within DOD.
In the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014, Congress required DOD to develop an implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. DOD finalized its plan in August 2017. The act included a provision for GAO to review the plan and report on related issues. GAO assessed the extent to which (1) DOD's implementation plan addresses mandated reporting elements and (2) DOD has made progress in implementing a joint oversight approach for managing the services' prepositioned stock programs.
GAO compared the implementation plan and DOD's joint oversight approach with congressional requirements and federal standards for internal control and interviewed DOD officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD provide information required by the NDAA, fully implement joint oversight of prepositioned stock programs, and update Congress on progress made. DOD concurred with all of the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-244?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital funding and maintenance practices. The report (GAO-19-202) is titled "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Actions Needed to Strengthen Capital Planning and Track Preventive Maintenance Program".The report was sent to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Maryland, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, Rep. Donald S Beyer Jr., D-Virginia, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital funding and maintenance practices. The report (GAO-19-202) is titled "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Actions Needed to Strengthen Capital Planning and Track Preventive Maintenance Program". The report was sent to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Maryland, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, Rep. Donald S Beyer Jr., D-Virginia,Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Maryland, Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D- District of Columbia, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland, and Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2011 through 2017, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) spent almost $6 billion on a variety of capital assets, with the largest share spent on improving its rail and bus fleet (see figure). Over this period, WMATA's capital spending was, on average, about $845 million annually.
(Figure Omitted)
WMATA's new capital planning process could address some weaknesses it identified in the prior process. WMATA established a framework for quantitatively prioritizing capital needs (investments to a group of related assets) over a 10-year period. However, WMATA has not established documented policies and procedures for implementing the new process, such as those for selecting specific projects for funding in its annual capital budget. WMATA is currently using its new capital planning process to make fiscal year 2020 investment decisions. WMATA has proposed a fiscal year 2020 capital budget of $1.4 billion. Without documented policies and procedures for implementing the new planning process, WMATA's stakeholders do not have reasonable assurance that WMATA is following a sound process for making investment decisions.
WMATA has made significant progress toward its track preventive maintenance program's goals, which are to reduce both track-defect and electrical-fire incidents by 50 percent in fiscal year 2019 compared with 2017. In fiscal year 2018, WMATA met its goal for reducing track defect incidents and reduced electrical fire incidents by 20 percent. However, in designing the program, WMATA did not fully assess risks. For example, WMATA did not quantitatively assess the impact of track defects or electrical fires on its ability to provide service, nor did it consider other risks such as non-electrical track fires, which represent about 30 percent of all fires on the system, or other factors, such as resources or track time. Without a comprehensive risk assessment, WMATA lacks reasonable assurance that the program is designed to address risks affecting the safety of the rail system or other risks that could hinder the new program's success."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Safety incidents in recent years on WMATA's rail system have raised questions about its processes for performing critical maintenance and replacing capital assets. WMATA initiated a new preventive maintenance program for its rail track in 2017, and is currently implementing a new capital planning process.
GAO was asked to examine issues related to WMATA's capital funding and maintenance practices. This report examines: (1) how WMATA spent its capital funds from fiscal years 2011 through 2017, (2) how WMATA's new capital planning process addresses weaknesses it identified in the prior process, and (3) WMATA's progress toward its track preventive maintenance program's goals and how the program aligns with leading program management practices. GAO analyzed WMATA's financial and program information, interviewed officials of WMATA, the Federal Transit Administration, and five transit agencies selected for similarities to WMATA. GAO compared WMATA's capital planning process and track maintenance program with leading practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that WMATA establish documented policies and procedures for the new capital planning process and conduct a comprehensive risk assessment for the track preventive maintenance program. WMATA described actions planned or underway to address GAO's recommendations. GAO believes the recommendations should be fully implemented, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-202?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Indian Programs
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to tribal self-government. The report (GAO-19-87) is titled "Indian Programs: Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs".The report was sent to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO found that various factors can affect tribes' use of self-determination ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to tribal self-government. The report (GAO-19-87) is titled "Indian Programs: Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO found that various factors can affect tribes' use of self-determinationcontracts and self-governance compacts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA), as amended, and tribal leasing under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). A key factor that helps tribes use these self-governance mechanisms is tribal government capacity to administer a federal program or manage these resources. Federal efforts that have helped build this capacity have included training, such as that offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2014 and 2015 to educate tribes on the benefits of developing tribal leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. In contrast, GAO found that other factors can hinder tribes' use of these mechanisms including:
Inadequate Information Sharing. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) policy and guidance states that tribes should be provided necessary information to design programs they would like to self-administer, such as the amount of funding available to the tribes for the programs and the amount retained by Interior for inherently federal functions. However, according to several tribal stakeholders and some BIA regional officials GAO spoke to, some of this information is not made available to the tribes prior to self-determination contract negotiations, such as information on funding calculations and determinations of inherently federal functions. Without this information, according to a tribal stakeholder, tribes may be at a disadvantage when negotiating with BIA and designing programs for self-determination contracts.
Delays in Disbursing Funds. According to tribal stakeholders, Interior's process does not ensure that funds associated with their self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts are disbursed in a timely manner. These funding delays can therefore be a factor that hinders their use of self-government mechanisms. Some tribal stakeholders said that disbursement delays have ranged from weeks to months. GAO was unable to determine the extent to which Interior disburses funds in accordance with ISDEAA or within agreed-upon time frames with the tribes, because Interior does not systematically track and monitor the disbursement of these funds.
Lengthy Review of Proposed Tribal Leasing Regulations. Interior does not have a clearly documented process for reviewing proposed tribal leasing regulations submitted under the HEARTH Act with identified time frames associated with each step of the process. As a result, tribal stakeholders told GAO that they are uncertain about how long the process will take and how it aligns with the 120 day requirement in the Act. According to tribal stakeholders and GAO's analysis of proposed regulations submitted from 2012 through 2017, Interior's review process has resulted in lengthy review times--in some cases, multiple years. Some tribal officials told GAO that Interior's lengthy review process had delayed the tribe's ability to make decisions about the use of their resources. By developing a clearly documented process that includes established time frames for each step in the review, Interior can help eliminate uncertainty and improve the transparency of the review process for the tribes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "For more than 4 decades, federal Indian policy has promoted tribal self-government--the practical exercise of Indian tribes and nations' inherent sovereign authority. Under ISDEAA, federally recognized tribes may request to enter into self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts with Interior, transferring the administration of federal programs to the tribe. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes may issue certain leases on their lands without Interior approval if such leases are executed under approved tribal regulations.
GAO was asked to evaluate issues related to tribal self-government. This report examines factors affecting tribes' use of self-determination contracts, self-governance compacts, and tribal leasing authority under the HEARTH Act. GAO reviewed key legislation and regulations, relevant literature, federal and tribal documents; analyzed agency data; and interviewed federal officials at 12 BIA regional offices, 29 tribes that used at least one of these mechanisms, and 7 tribal organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that Interior develop processes to share how it makes funding and inherently federal function determinations with tribes, to track and monitor the disbursement of funds within agreed upon time frames, and for the review of proposed tribal leasing regulations including review time frames. Interior concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-87?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Retirement Security
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. The report (GAO-19-218R) is titled "Retirement Security: Alternate Price Indexes for Cost-of-Living Adjustments Present Tradeoffs".The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Use of an alternate consumer price ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. The report (GAO-19-218R) is titled "Retirement Security: Alternate Price Indexes for Cost-of-Living Adjustments Present Tradeoffs". The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Use of an alternate consumer priceindex (CPI) for calculating cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would create tradeoffs regarding individual benefits and the costs for federal retirement programs, such as Social Security. Using historical and assumed future inflation, GAO analyzed the effect on retirement benefits and program costs that could result from switching to an alternate CPI from the index currently used to set COLAs, the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), and found that although the annual differences between the CPIs are relatively small, the differences accumulate over time. For example, estimates show that switching to the Chained CPI-U, which more fully incorporates consumers' ability to buy different products in response to changing prices, would result in small annual reductions in estimated COLA and program costs. Similar estimates show that switching to the CPI for the Elderly (CPI-E), which reflects spending patterns of the elderly, would result in small annual increases in estimated COLA and program costs. However, over time, these small increases accumulate. Specifically, if COLAs had been based on the Chained CPI-U or CPI-E over the 2003-2033 period, estimates based on historical and assumed future inflation show that relative to using the CPI-W, the first year's adjusted monthly benefit in 2004 would change by a few dollars or less, but that after 30 years, the monthly difference would be $100 or more for a hypothetical beneficiary who earned the average national wage.
The change in benefits resulting from using an alternate index would have the largest relative effect on beneficiaries who receive benefits the longest and those with lower incomes. This is partly because changes to the COLA accumulate over time and because lower-income beneficiaries rely more on federal retirement programs, such as Social Security. GAO estimates based on hypothetical COLAs and survey data show that the total retirement income of a household in the lowest income quintile would decrease by about 6 percent over 30 years if Social Security used the Chained CPI-U. For the same lower-income household, GAO estimates show that retirement income would increase by about 4 percent over 30 years if the CPI-E were used. For a household in the highest income quintile, estimates show that total retirement income would change by 1 percent over this same period using either alternate scenario.
In addition, implementation issues could complicate use of an alternate CPI. For example, the Chained CPI-U is based on preliminary data that are subject to change up to 1 year after they are initially calculated, and the revisions can be significant either upward or downward. As a result, agencies may need to consider how or whether to address this issue. Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which began producing the CPI-E in 1988, considers the CPI-E an experimental index. According to BLS officials, the potential cost of improving the methodology to produce the CPI-E as an official index could be significant. BLS's 2017 estimates indicate that making the CPI-E official could cost up to $110 million per year.
While this report focused on federal retirement programs, the information is relevant for other federal programs as well. For example, by law the COLA for Social Security retirement benefits is the same as the COLA for Social Security disability benefits, and changes to that COLA trigger changes to the COLA for Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement Board pensions, and Veterans Affairs pensions."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The BLS generates various CPIs that are often used to calculate COLAs for benefits provided by federal programs, including retirement programs such as military pensions, federal employee pensions, and Social Security, one of the largest programs for older Americans. After initial benefits have been set, these federal retirement programs adjust benefits using the CPI-W in order to keep pace with inflation. However, some economists have argued that the CPI-W may overestimate the cost of living because individuals can partially offset the effect of inflation by purchasing different goods and services. Other economists have argued that the CPI-W may underestimate the cost of living for retirees by misrepresenting the quantity of goods and services that older Americans consume, such as medical care and shelter.
GAO was asked to describe the effects of various price indexes on older Americans' retirement security. This report provides information on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. GAO reviewed federal publications, which GAO identified by interviewing agency officials and searching agency websites. GAO also analyzed historical CPI data and information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to calculate hypothetical COLAs that could have been used if the Social Security COLA used an alternate CPI over the 2003-2033 period. Future CPI assumptions are from SSA and consistent with the intermediate long-range assumptions in the 2018 Trustees Report. GAO also analyzed 2016 data from the Survey of Consumer Finances to understand the share of retirement income that is from Social Security benefits."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-218R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Environmental Cleanup Liability
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of Environmental Management's environmental liability. The report (GAO-19-28) is titled "Department of Energy: Program-Wide Strategy and Better Reporting Needed to Address Growing Environmental Cleanup Liability".The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) faces ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of Environmental Management's environmental liability. The report (GAO-19-28) is titled "Department of Energy: Program-Wide Strategy and Better Reporting Needed to Address Growing Environmental Cleanup Liability". The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) facesan environmental liability of $377 billion, according to DOE's fiscal year 2018 financial statement. This amount largely reflects estimates of future costs to clean up legacy radioactive tank waste and contaminated facilities and soil. From fiscal years 2011 through 2018, EM's environmental liability grew by about $214 billion--outpacing its cleanup spending of about $45 billion for that time period. Contract and project management problems and other factors have led to this growth. For example, EM's environmental liability increased by nearly $130 billion from fiscal year 2014 to 2018 at the Hanford Site in Washington State, in part because of contract and project management problems with waste cleanup. GAO found that EM's liability will likely continue to grow, in part because the costs of some future work are not yet included in the estimated liability. For example, EM's liability does not include more than $2.3 billion in costs associated with 45 contaminated facilities that will likely be transferred to EM from other DOE programs in the future.
EM relies primarily on individual sites to locally negotiate cleanup activities and establish priorities. GAO's analysis of DOE documents identified instances of decisions involving billions of dollars where such an approach did not always balance overall risks and costs. For example, two EM sites had plans to treat similar radioactive tank waste differently, and the costs at one site--Hanford--may be tens of billions more than those at the other site. EM sites generally do not consider other sites' risks and priorities when making cleanup decisions. This is not consistent with recommendations by GAO and others over the last 2 decades that EM develop national priorities to balance risks and costs across and within its sites. However, EM has not developed such a program-wide strategy. Instead, according to agency officials, it continues to prioritize and fund cleanup activities by individual site. Without a strategy that sets national priorities and describes how DOE will address its greatest risks, EM lacks assurance that it is making the most cost-effective cleanup decisions across its sites.
EM's recent budget materials have not provided required or accurate information on funding needed to meet future cleanup responsibilities. For example, under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, EM must annually report estimated costs and detailed funding needs for future cleanup activities. EM's 2017 submission to Congress--only the second one since 2011--did not include a detailed list of upcoming activities or funding needed to meet those activities. Additionally, EM's recent budget materials have not reflected the funding needed to meet schedule milestones called for in site-specific compliance agreements with states. These agreements are legally enforceable documents defining cleanup activities that DOE must achieve by specified dates. By reflecting the funding it needs to meet all of its scheduled milestones called for in compliance agreements--for example, in its annual report noted above or in supplemental budget materials--EM could better ensure that Congress has complete information to assess the full costs of long-term cleanup."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOE is tasked with cleaning up legacy waste from nuclear weapons produced during the Cold War era. Since it began its cleanup program in 1989, EM has spent about $170 billion, but its most challenging and costly cleanup work remains, according to agency documents. EM's cleanup of legacy defense waste is annually funded through discretionary appropriations, so difficult trade-offs will have to be made between cleanup and other nuclear-related defense spending.
In 2017, GAO added federal government environmental liabilities to its High-Risk List. GAO was asked to review EM's environmental liability. This report examines (1) what is known about EM's environmental liability, (2) the extent to which EM balances risks and costs when addressing its cleanup responsibilities, and (3) the extent to which EM's budget materials provide required and accurate information on needed funding. GAO reviewed DOE financial statements, DOE documents, and reports by independent experts; visited three EM sites with three-quarters of the liability; and interviewed EM headquarters and site officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to DOE: (1) develop a program-wide strategy that outlines how it will balance risks and costs across sites; (2) submit its mandated annual cleanup report that meets all requirements; and (3) disclose the funding needed to meet all scheduled milestones called for in compliance agreements, either in required annual reports or other supplemental budget materials. DOE agreed with all three recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-28?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Health Insurance Exchanges
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on claims costs of issuers participating in exchanges. The report (GAO-19-215) is titled "Health Insurance Exchanges: Claims Costs and Federal and State Policies Drove Issuer Participation, Premiums, and Plan Design".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on claims costs of issuers participating in exchanges. The report (GAO-19-215) is titled "Health Insurance Exchanges: Claims Costs and Federal and State Policies Drove Issuer Participation, Premiums, and Plan Design". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep.Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2014, when health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) began operating, issuers' medical costs for enrollees (claims costs) in the individual market have varied widely.
* Claims costs were higher than expected in early years (from 2014-2016). Reviewed studies and interviews with selected issuers indicate that claims costs for plans sold to individuals were higher than expected, in some cases between 6 and 10 percent higher in 2014. This was due to enrollees being sicker than expected, higher costs for some services, and certain federal policies, such as initial policies for special enrollment periods that issuers were concerned allowed for potential misuse.
* Claims costs generally grew from 2014 to 2017, but selected issuers sometimes experienced wide swings in costs from year to year. Most issuers attributed the volatility in costs, in part, to large changes in the number and health of enrollees each year.
* Average monthly claims costs varied significantly across issuers in the same state. For selected issuers, differences in per member per month claims costs within a given state were often more than $100--significant given that median per member per month claims costs were about $300.
Selected issuers also varied significantly in their decisions to expand or reduce their participation in the exchanges and make changes to premiums and plan design. Issuers cited several key factors driving changes.
* Claims costs. Selected issuers noted that claims costs drove their decisions regarding participation, premiums, and plan design. For example, increasing claims costs was a consistent factor driving premium increases.
* Federal funding changes. Selected issuers cited the planned phase out of federal programs that helped issuers mitigate risk, including payments and adjustments for issuers with higher cost enrollees, the limited funding for one of those programs, and the ending of federal payments for cost-sharing for certain enrollees, as reasons for reducing participation and increasing premiums.
* State requirements and funding. Selected issuers provided examples of state requirements that resulted in reduced participation and increased premiums. However, issuers also cited examples where state policies minimized premium increases or variations in benefit design for issuers participating in the state's exchange.
Looking to 2018 and 2019, selected issuers said that changes in federal and state policies would continue to affect decisions, particularly on premium changes.
The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 2014, millions of individuals have purchased coverage through the health insurance exchanges established under PPACA. PPACA altered the individual health insurance market by setting federal standards for coverage and subsidizing exchange coverage for certain low-income individuals. In the first 5 years of exchanges, issuers have moved in and out of the market and increased premiums, but little is known about issuers' claims costs or the factors driving their business decisions.
PPACA included a provision for GAO to examine exchange activities, including issuers' experiences participating in the individual market exchanges. This report examines (1) claims costs of issuers participating in exchanges, and (2) factors driving selected issuers' changes in exchange participation, premiums, and plan design. GAO reviewed data from nine issuers participating in five states, which were selected to represent a range in size, tax status, and exchange participation. The five states--California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Mississippi--were selected to provide variation in geography and whether they had a federally facilitated or state-based exchange. GAO also conducted a literature review, reviewed federal data, and interviewed the selected issuers, officials in the selected states, and stakeholder groups."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-215?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Overseas Contingency Operations
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on alternatives that Congress or Department of Defense could use to separate funding for overseas contingency operations and base activities. The report (GAO-19-211) is titled "Overseas Contingency Operations: Alternatives Identified to the Approach to Fund War- Related Activities".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on alternatives that Congress or Department of Defense could use to separate funding for overseas contingency operations and base activities. The report (GAO-19-211) is titled "Overseas Contingency Operations: Alternatives Identified to the Approach to Fund War- Related Activities". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, rankingmember of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Selected Department of Defense (DOD) components use coding and other internal control activities to separately account for overseas contingency operations (OCO) and base amounts in their operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts during budget execution. To record and track OCO and base amounts separately, the military services, U.S. Special Operations Command, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency use coding in their financial systems. These DOD components also have instituted some internal control activities to help ensure separation of OCO amounts. For example, Army and Defense Security Cooperation Agency officials stated that the financial systems they use incorporate system controls that automatically maintain the categories of funding, such as OCO, designated during allotment through subsequent actions to ensure the OCO coding remains throughout budget execution.
GAO identified at least four alternatives to the processes used to separate funding for DOD's OCO and base activities:
* Move enduring costs to the base budget. DOD could request funding for enduring costs--costs that would continue in the absence of contingency operations--through its base budget rather than its OCO budget.
* Use specific purpose language. Congress could use legally binding language in the annual DOD appropriations acts to specify the purposes--programs, projects and activities--for which OCO amounts may be obligated.
* Create separate appropriation accounts. Congress could create separate appropriation accounts for OCO and base funding.
* Use a transfer account. Congress could appropriate funds for OCO into a non-expiring transfer account. DOD would fund OCO with its base budget and later reimburse its base accounts using funds from a transfer account.
Implementing these alternatives would require Congress and DOD to take action in different phases of the budget process (see figure).
(Figure Omitted)
Each alternative includes tradeoffs that Congress and DOD would have to consider to strike the desired balance between agency flexibility and congressional control. The alternatives, and GAO's summary of their positive and negative aspects identified by questionnaire respondents, could be a reference for Congress and DOD as they consider potential changes to processes for separating the funding of amounts for OCO and base activities."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 2001, DOD has received more than $1.8 trillion in OCO funds. DOD defines "contingency operations" as small, medium, or large-scale military operations, while "base" activities include operating support for installations, civilian pay, and other costs that would be incurred, regardless of contingency operations. Congress separately appropriates amounts for base and OCO activities into the same appropriation accounts and directs how funds are to be spent by designating amounts in conference reports or explanatory statements accompanying the annual appropriations acts.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to report on the feasibility of separating OCO expenditures from other DOD expenditures. This report (1) describes internal controls that selected DOD components use to separately account for OCO and base amounts during budget execution and (2) identifies and examines alternatives that Congress or DOD could use to separate funding for OCO and base activities.
GAO reviewed documentation of DOD internal controls for separating OCO and base amounts in the O&M account, interviewed financial management officials, and, among other things, conducted a literature review to identify alternatives that Congress or DOD could use to separate funding for OCO and base activities. Also, GAO administered a questionnaire to DOD and non-DOD officials to identify positive and negative aspects of these alternatives."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-211?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Army Modernization
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Army's modernization strategy. The report (GAO-19-132) is titled "Army Modernization: Steps Needed to Ensure Army Futures Command Fully Applies Leading Practices".The report was sent to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 23,. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2017, when the Army announced its initiative to update its forces and equipment with improved capabilities--known ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Army's modernization strategy. The report (GAO-19-132) is titled "Army Modernization: Steps Needed to Ensure Army Futures Command Fully Applies Leading Practices". The report was sent to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 23,. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Since 2017, when the Army announced its initiative to update its forces and equipment with improved capabilities--knownas modernization--it has:
* prioritized six broad areas of capability needs as shown in the table below;
* established and assigned eight cross-functional teams to pilot how to address these needs;
* established the Army Futures Command as the focal point for modernization efforts, with a four-star general to oversee it; and
* realigned over $1 billion in science and technology funding to support modernization efforts within the $7.5 billion expected to be spent over the next 5 years.
(Table omitted)
To date, the Army has generally applied leading practices identified by GAO to its modernization efforts. For example, the cross-functional team pilots generally applied leading practices for determining requirements and technology development and for establishing effective teams. Similarly, as the Army began the process of establishing the Army Futures Command, it has started to apply the leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations by establishing a clearly defined mission and providing a clear consistent rationale for the command. However, GAO identified other areas where the Army has not fully applied leading practices to its modernization efforts including the following:
* Under the modernization effort, the Army plans to begin weapon systems development at a lower level of maturity than what is recommended by leading practices. GAO has raised concerns about this type of practice for almost two decades for other Army acquisitions, because proceeding into weapon systems development at earlier stages of technology maturity raises the risk that the resulting systems could experience cost increases, delivery delays, or failure to deliver desired capabilities. Taking this approach for acquisitions under the modernization effort raises similar concerns for the Army's six prioritized capability needs.
* he Army has not developed a plan for capturing the lessons learned from the cross-functional team pilots, and therefore may miss an opportunity to leverage the experience of these teams in applying leading practices."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In order for the Army to maintain its technological edge over potential adversaries, it plans to invest in near- and long-term modernization efforts. However, the Army has struggled with modernization initiatives in the past. For example, the Future Combat System was canceled after a cost of $21 billion and delivery of few new capabilities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to report on the Army's modernization strategy. This report assesses (1) the status of the Army's near- and long-term modernization efforts; and (2) the extent to which the Army has applied leading practices to these efforts. GAO reviewed Army directives, procedures, and policies; and compared the Army's efforts with leading practices for requirements and technology development, effective cross-functional teams, and mergers and organizational transformations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that the Army follow leading practices for maturing technologies to a higher level than currently planned and develop a plan to capture lessons learned from the cross-functional teams. DOD concurred with all the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-132?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Medicare
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the episode-based payment models developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report (GAO-19-156) is titled "Medicare: Voluntary and Mandatory Episode-Based Payment Models and Their Participants".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "As of February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had tested, or was in the process of testing, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the episode-based payment models developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report (GAO-19-156) is titled "Medicare: Voluntary and Mandatory Episode-Based Payment Models and Their Participants". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "As of February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had tested, or was in the process of testing,six episode-based payment models as alternatives to traditional Medicare. In these models, rather than pay providers largely based on the volume and complexity of each individual service, CMS establishes a target payment amount to cover the costs of all the services Medicare beneficiaries may receive during a defined "episode of care" initiated by a health care event, such as a surgical hospitalization. Providers can earn additional payments if they treat beneficiaries for less than the target amount and meet certain quality metrics; in some models, providers may be penalized for expenditures that exceed the target amount or if the care provided does not meet quality goals. Provider participation in all but one of the six models being tested is entirely voluntary (i.e., eligible providers may choose to participate in the model and generally have an option to leave the model before testing ends), with participation in the remaining model mandatory for some providers (i.e., eligible providers must participate and cannot leave the model before testing ends).
According to CMS data and reports that GAO reviewed, providers participating in the six episode-based payment models typically had more beds or larger practices, had higher episode volume, and were more often located in urban areas compared to all providers that participated in traditional Medicare. Stakeholders--participants, experts, and provider groups--that GAO interviewed noted that the likelihood for financial gain under voluntary models can influence providers' decisions to participate in the models.
Stakeholders also identified relative advantages of voluntary versus mandatory episode-based payment models. In general, stakeholders reported that voluntary models largely benefit providers. For example, these models tend to have more generous terms and providers can choose to participate in only those models where they are likely to be successful. On the other hand, mandatory models are more likely to give CMS generalizable evaluation results."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2017, expenditures for health care services provided through traditional Medicare totaled approximately $394 billion and were expected to grow to $730 billion by 2027. This 85 percent increase is expected to be driven by multiple factors, including increases in the number of services provided per beneficiary. In an effort to slow this growth and improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries, CMS is testing alternatives to traditional Medicare, such as episode-based payment models. Under episode-based payment models, providers such as hospitals or physician group practices are held accountable for the cost and quality of the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries during a defined episode of care.
GAO was asked to review the episode-based payment models developed by CMS. This report (1) describes the characteristics of the providers that participated in these models and (2) compares the relative advantages of voluntary versus mandatory episode-based payment models, as identified by stakeholders.
GAO analyzed CMS data on participants and other providers and reviewed CMS's evaluations of the models. GAO also interviewed multiple stakeholders, including officials from CMS, its contractors, selected providers and organizations representing providers, as well as Medicare experts.
The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report. GAO incorporated these comments as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-156?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Climate Change
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. The report (GAO-19-166) is titled "Climate Change: Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration".The report was sent to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. The report (GAO-19-166) is titled "Climate Change: Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration". The report was sent to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found:"From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, a variety of executive branch actions related to climate change--such as executive orders and strategies--affected the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD), including their activities that could potentially address the nexus of climate change and migration. For example, a fiscal year 2016 presidential memorandum--rescinded in 2017--required agencies to develop implementation plans to identify the potential impact of climate change on human mobility, among other things. In general, however, climate change as a driver of migration was not a focus of the executive branch actions. For example, a fiscal year 2014 executive order--also rescinded in 2017--requiring agencies to prepare for the impacts of climate change did not highlight migration as a particular concern.
State, USAID, and DOD have discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in agency plans and risk assessments. For example, State and USAID required climate change risk assessments when developing country and regional strategies, and a few of the strategies reviewed by GAO identified the nexus of climate change and migration as a risk. However, State changed its approach in 2017, no longer providing missions with guidance on whether and how to include climate change risks in their integrated country strategies. In doing so, State did not include in its 2018 guidance to the missions any information on how to include climate change risks, should the missions choose to do so. Without clear guidance, State may miss opportunities to identify and address issues related to climate change as a potential driver of migration.
The three agencies have been involved in climate change related activities but none were specifically focused on the nexus with global migration. For example, USAID officials said that the agency's adaptation efforts, such as its Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion project in Ethiopia, were the most likely to include activities, such as enhancing resilience, that can indirectly address the issue of climate change as a driver of migration."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The effects of climate change, combined with other factors, may alter human migration trends across the globe, according to the International Organization for Migration. For example, climate change can increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, causing populations to move from an area. Climate change can also intensify slow-onset disasters, such as drought, crop failure, or sea level rise, potentially altering longer-term migration trends.
GAO was asked to review how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. For State, USAID, and DOD, this report (1) describes executive branch actions related to climate change and migration from fiscal years 2014 through 2018; (2) examines the extent to which the agencies discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in their plans and risk assessments; and (3) describes agency activities on the issue. GAO analyzed documents on administration priorities; reviewed agency plans, risk assessments, and documentation of agency activities; and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State provide missions with guidance that clearly documents its process for climate change risk assessments for country strategies. In commenting on a draft of this report, State indicated that it would update its integrated country strategy guidance and will specifically note that missions have the option to provide additional information on climate resilience and related topics."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-166?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Management
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has made progress in addressing the requirements of section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The report (GAO-19-165) is titled "Defense Management: DOD Needs to Implement Statutory Requirements and Identify Resources for Its Cross-Functional Reform Teams".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has made progress in addressing the requirements of section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The report (GAO-19-165) is titled "Defense Management: DOD Needs to Implement Statutory Requirements and Identify Resources for Its Cross-Functional Reform Teams". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep.Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented four statutory requirements in section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, but has not addressed five requirements intended to support cross-functional teams and promote department-wide collaboration (see table).
(Table omitted)
For two of these requirements, DOD has missed the statutory deadline by more than a year. GAO previously recommended that DOD take actions to improve its implementation of section 911, and DOD reported it is doing so, such as revising its draft cross-functional team guidance to address statutory requirements. Fully implementing GAO's prior recommendations and the remaining statutory requirements would better position DOD to effectively implement its cross-functional teams and advance a collaborative culture, as required by the NDAA.
Nine cross-functional teams are driving DOD's enterprise business reform efforts under section 921 of the FY 2019 NDAA, but the teams' progress has been uneven. As of September 2018, DOD reported that these nine teams were pursuing a total of 135 business reform initiatives. However, 104 of these initiatives have not reached the implementation phase. A key challenge facing the teams is that some lack resources to fully implement their approved initiatives. For example, DOD officials stated that the department did not fulfill four of nine funding requests from the teams in fiscal year 2018 to implement their initiatives. As of September 2018, DOD officials estimated that the teams need about $6.7 billion to implement their initiatives from FYs 2018 through 2024, but DOD has not identified sources for this funding. GAO's prior work on efficiency initiatives found that up-front investments may be required to realize long-term savings. In addition, GAO's prior work on leading practices for implementing effective cross-functional teams highlights the importance of providing teams with access to resources and having well-defined team operations with established rules and procedures. However, DOD has not established a process for identifying and prioritizing available funding for implementing the teams' initiatives. Without such a process, DOD and the teams may not be able to adequately plan for and execute their reform initiatives."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD continues to confront organizational challenges that hinder collaboration. To address these challenges, section 911 of the NDAA for FY 2017 directed the Secretary of Defense to issue an organizational strategy that identifies critical objectives that span multiple functional boundaries; establish cross-functional teams to support this strategy and provide related guidance and training; and take actions to streamline the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Further, section 921 of the NDAA for FY 2019 calls for the Secretary of Defense to reform the department's enterprise business operations.
The NDAAs for FY 2017 and 2019 also included provisions for GAO to assess DOD's actions in response to sections 911 and 921, respectively. This report assesses the extent to which DOD has made progress in (1) addressing the requirements of section 911, and (2) reforming the department's enterprise business operations under section 921. GAO reviewed documentation on DOD's implementation of sections 911 and 921; interviewed cross-functional team leaders, members, and other DOD officials; and compared DOD's implementation of its cross-functional teams to GAO's key practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD establish a process to identify and prioritize funding for implementing its cross-functional teams' business reform initiatives. DOD concurred with this recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-165?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Drug Control
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug program. The report (GAO-19-27) is titled "Drug Control: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the National Guard Counterdrug Program".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug program. The report (GAO-19-27) is titled "Drug Control: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the National Guard Counterdrug Program". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) lacks current strategy and guidance to implement the National Guard counterdrug program. Although a number of key national-level strategies, such as the National Drug Control Strategy, have been updated since 2011 to address changing drug threats, GAO found that DOD's 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated to reflect these changes. In addition, the National Guard lacks detailed procedures and processes for the states to implement the National Guard counterdrug program, such as how to conduct cross-state aerial reconnaissance. Without current strategy or guidance, it will be difficult for the National Guard to operate its counterdrug program effectively.
DOD's processes to approve state counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the state-level counterdrug programs could be improved. Since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the states without first approving state plans for counterdrug activities, as required by statute. GAO found that the delay in approval of state counterdrug plans has worsened since fiscal year 2009; in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days); see figure below. In 2018, DOD took some steps to address the timely review of state plans, but GAO found that those steps did not rectify the problem.
(Figure Omitted)
GAO also found that the process used by the National Guard to distribute funding to the states within the program does not incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities, such as the U.S. southwest and northern border areas. GAO's work on results-oriented management states that strategy should inform program activities and resourcing. Until National Guard's process to distribute funding to state counterdrug programs is improved, it risks directing funding toward lower priority counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1989, DOD has received billions of dollars to fund the National Guard's participation in a counterdrug program focused on domestic drug interdiction activities. DOD received $261 million for this program in fiscal year 2018. This program provides military support to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations with counterdrug activities and operates in 54 states and territories across the United States.
Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the National Guard counterdrug program. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which DOD has strategy and implementing guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program, and (2) assesses DOD's processes to approve states' counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the program, among other things. GAO reviewed DOD's counterdrug strategy and guidance; DOD funding and personnel data; and its processes to distribute funding."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making a total of five recommendations, including, among others, that DOD issue a strategic framework that addresses current drug threats, the National Guard issue guidance with detailed procedures on how states should administer the program, DOD assess the revised process for approving state plans, and the National Guard incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities into its funding distribution process. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-27?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Housing Finance
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Finance Agency's conservatorships of Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. The report (GAO-19-239) is titled "Housing Finance: Prolonged Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prompt Need for Reform".The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, on Jan. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal support ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Finance Agency's conservatorships of Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. The report (GAO-19-239) is titled "Housing Finance: Prolonged Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prompt Need for Reform". The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, on Jan. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Federal supportof the housing finance market remains significant even though the market has largely recovered since the 2007-2009 financial crisis. While down from the peak in 2009, in 2017, the federal government directly or indirectly guaranteed about 70 percent of single-family mortgage originations.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)--two government-sponsored enterprises (enterprises) that purchase and securitize mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS)--securitized and guaranteed about 46 percent of mortgage originations in 2017.
In 2017, federal programs, such as those offered by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), insured about 25 percent of mortgage originations.
Together, the enterprises and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)--a federally owned corporation that guarantees MBS backed by federally insured mortgages--have issued or guaranteed 95 percent or more of all MBS issued annually since 2008 (see figure).
(Figure omitted)
However, recent market trends pose risks to these entities and the housing finance system. For example, mortgage lending standards have loosened slightly in recent years, which could increase the risk of borrower default--especially in a recession or downturn in the housing market--and losses to federal entities. Nonbanks have increased their presence in mortgage lending and servicing, which involves collecting monthly mortgage payments, among other duties. For instance, the share of nonbank originations of FHA-insured mortgages increased from 56 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 86 percent in 2017. The share of nonbank servicers of mortgages in enterprise MBS also grew from 25 percent in 2014 to 38 percent as of the third quarter of 2018. While nonbank lenders and servicers have helped provide access to mortgage credit, they are not subject to federal safety and soundness regulations.
Note: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages and issue and guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Ginnie Mae guarantees MBS backed by federally-insured mortgages. Private-label MBS do not have a government guarantee.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has taken actions to lessen some of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's risk exposure. For example, under FHFA's direction, the enterprises have reduced the size of their riskier retained mortgage portfolios which hold assets that expose them to considerable interest rate and other risks from a combined $1.6 trillion in 2008 to $484 billion in 2017. Since 2013, the enterprises also have transferred increasing amounts of risk on their guaranteed MBS to private investors and insurers through credit risk transfer programs. However, federal fiscal exposure remains significant. The Department of the Treasury's remaining funding commitment through the senior preferred stock purchase agreements--which provide financial support to the enterprises--leaves taxpayers exposed to risk, especially in the event of adverse market or other conditions and given the recent growth in the enterprises' guarantee business. The value of outstanding MBS on which the enterprises guarantee principal and interest payments to investors grew from about $2.1 trillion in 2003 to about $4.8 trillion in 2017. The long duration of the conservatorships also raises uncertainty among market participants. Several experts and stakeholders GAO interviewed said that they have hesitated to make longer-term strategic plans and goals due to potential housing finance reforms that could markedly affect their industries. The figure below shows 2003-2017 trends in the enterprises' guarantee business and retained mortgage portfolios.
(Figure omitted)
Note: Dollar amounts represent unpaid principal balance at year-end. The enterprises hold some of their mortgage-backed securities in their own and each other's retained mortgage portfolios.
GAO reviewed 14 housing finance reform proposals from Congress, agencies, industry groups, and think tanks. The proposals generally fit into four different models: reconstituted enterprises, a multiple guarantor system with an explicit federal guarantee, a government corporation, and a completely privatized market without an explicit federal guarantee. The 14 proposals generally meet key elements of GAO's framework for assessing potential changes to the housing finance system, such as addressing fiscal exposure, protecting investors, and considering the implications of the transition to a new system. However, many proposals lack clearly defined and prioritized goals or do not address the role of other federal entities in the housing finance system, such as FHA and Ginnie Mae--two key elements in GAO's framework. By incorporating these elements, policymakers could facilitate a more focused and comprehensive transition to a new housing finance system and provide greater certainty to market participants."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 2008, the federal government has greatly increased its role in financially supporting housing markets. In September 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship, which created an explicit fiscal exposure for the federal government. As of October 2018, the dollar amounts of their outstanding MBS have grown by more than $800 billion since the end of 2008.
Since 2013, GAO has designated the federal role in housing finance as a high-risk area. GAO examines (1) recent housing market developments, (2) risks and challenges posed by the current federal role, including ongoing conservatorship, and (3) housing finance reform proposals and their strengths and limitations.
To address these issues, GAO reviewed housing finance data; FHFA and enterprise reports; and 14 housing finance reform proposals introduced in Congress or proposed by industry stakeholders since 2014. GAO also convened panels with housing finance experts and stakeholders (including consumer advocates, mortgage originators, insurers, and investors), who developed reform proposals, testified before Congress, or participated in prior GAO studies."
What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider legislation for the future federal role in housing finance that addresses the structure of the enterprises, establishes clear and prioritized goals, and considers all relevant federal entities, such as FHA and Ginnie Mae."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-239?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military, Veteran Support
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on comprehensive inventory of the federal programs to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. The report (GAO-19-97R) is titled "Military and Veteran Support: Detailed Inventory of Federal Programs to Help Servicemembers Achieve Civilian Employment".The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on comprehensive inventory of the federal programs to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. The report (GAO-19-97R) is titled "Military and Veteran Support: Detailed Inventory of Federal Programs to Help Servicemembers Achieve Civilian Employment". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, rankingmember of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
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 service members 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."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-97R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's progress in addressing Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act requirements since 2016. The report (GAO-19-96) is titled "Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act: TSA Generally Addressed Requirements, but Could Improve Reporting on Security-Related Technology".The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's progress in addressing Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act requirements since 2016. The report (GAO-19-96) is titled "Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act: TSA Generally Addressed Requirements, but Could Improve Reporting on Security-Related Technology". The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson,D-Mississippi, chairman, and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2016, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) generally addressed Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (TSARA) requirements through its policies and procedures for acquisition justifications, baseline requirements, and management of inventory. TSA also, among other actions, submitted a technology investment plan and annual small-business contracting goals reports to Congress as required.
Since December 2014, TSA reported limited security-related technology (SRT) acquisitions to Congress under TSARA, submitting its first report in August 2018. TSARA contains a report and certification provision pursuant to which TSA is to submit information to Congress 30 days prior to the award of a contract for an SRT acquisition exceeding $30 million. Through July 2018, TSA obligated about $1.4 billion on SRT and associated services. TSA officials explained that none of these obligations--including 7 SRT orders, each in excess of $30 million--invoked the report and certification provision because the obligations did not align with TSA's implementation policy, which provides that the $30 million threshold relates to the contract ceiling of the initial SRT contract and not to individual task and delivery orders. Revising TSA's policy to include contracts for services that enhance the capabilities of SRT, including any orders for SRT and associated services in excess of $30 million, would better ensure that Congress has the information it needs to effectively oversee TSA's SRT acquisitions.
TSA has not effectively communicated internally its implementation decisions for what constitutes an SRT under TSARA. TSA officials described to GAO that SRT must be equipment that is public facing, but TSA's policy does not clearly state the parameters of what is considered an SRT. Without clear guidance, TSA staff may be unaware of these parameters and how they apply to future acquisitions under TSARA. For example, TSA acquisition program staff were initially unable to confirm for GAO whether the technologies TSA had acquired were SRTs and thus subject to TSARA. Updating TSA policy to include detailed parameters for what constitutes an SRT would better ensure consistency in applying the act."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Enacted in December 2014, TSARA introduced legislative reforms to promote greater transparency and accountability in TSA's SRT acquisitions.
TSARA contains a provision that GAO submit two reports to Congress on TSA's progress in implementing TSARA. In February 2016, GAO issued the first report that found TSA had taken actions to address TSARA.
This second report examines TSA's (1) progress in addressing TSARA requirements since 2016, (2) reporting to Congress on SRT acquisitions, and (3) internal communication of its implementation decisions. GAO examined TSARA and TSA documents and guidance; analyzed TSA contract data and reports from TSARA's enactment in December 2014 through July 2018 and September 2018, respectively; and interviewed DHS and TSA officials on actions taken to implement TSARA. GAO also conducted interviews with TSA officials on parameters for reporting on SRT acquisitions."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that TSA revise its policies for the report and certification provision of TSARA to include reporting on task and delivery orders and services associated with SRT, and clarify in policy what constitutes an SRT under TSARA. DHS generally concurred with the recommendations and described steps it plans to take to implement them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-96?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Bureau of Reclamation
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The report (GAO-19-110) is titled "Bureau of Reclamation: Water Reuse Grant Program Supports Diverse Projects and Is Managed Consistently with Federal Regulations".The report was sent to Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, ranking member of the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The report (GAO-19-110) is titled "Bureau of Reclamation: Water Reuse Grant Program Supports Diverse Projects and Is Managed Consistently with Federal Regulations". The report was sent to Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, ranking member of the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and Rep.Paul Tonko, D-New York, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Environment, on Dec. 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Bureau of Reclamation, within the Department of the Interior, awarded about $715 million in water reuse grants for 46 construction projects and 71 studies under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI) from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2017, according to agency documents. Most of the Title XVI funding--about $703 million--has been awarded for construction projects. Some construction projects remain eligible for Title XVI grant funding. About $464 million in eligible Title XVI grant funding not yet awarded remains for projects that Congress individually authorized; for projects eligible under the 2016 amendments to the Title XVI program, about $513 million remains.
Title XVI projects and studies cover various uses for reused water. For example, many projects GAO reviewed produce reused water for landscape and agricultural irrigation, as well as water that may later be extracted for drinking water, as shown in the figure. Title XVI projects are located in western urban and rural areas, with California accounting for 36 construction projects.
(Figure Omitted)
Reclamation's process to select Title XVI projects and studies to receive grants involves announcing the funding opportunity, establishing criteria to evaluate potential projects, and reviewing applications to make award decisions, according to agency documents GAO reviewed. GAO found that Reclamation's grant award process is consistent with relevant federal regulations for awarding grants. For example, the Title XVI funding opportunity announcements GAO reviewed contained information required by the regulations, such as the criteria used to evaluate applications. In recent years, Reclamation has changed the criteria it uses to evaluate projects, eliminating or adding some criteria and changing the weighting of others. Reclamation officials said that these changes were made in part in response to statutory changes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Population growth and drought are among the factors that have placed increasing demands on the U.S. water supply, particularly in the arid West. The reuse of wastewater can help address water management challenges by treating water that is typically unusable and then reusing it for beneficial purposes, such as irrigation, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Reclamation's Title XVI program awards grants for the study and construction of water reuse projects in 17 western states and Hawaii. From fiscal years 1992 through 2009, Congress individually authorized some Title XVI projects. In 2016, Congress amended the Title XVI program to allow grants to be awarded to additional water reuse projects.
GAO was asked to review the Title XVI program. This report describes, among other things, for the Title XVI program (1) grants Reclamation has awarded for projects and studies and remaining projects that are eligible for grants, (2) the types and locations of projects and studies that have received grants, and (3) Reclamation's process for selecting projects and studies and its consistency with federal grant regulations as well as how the program's evaluation criteria have changed since 2011. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency guidance; analyzed financial data for fiscal years 1992 through 2017; compared documents related to the project selection process against federal grant regulations; and interviewed agency officials and nonfederal project sponsors with different types of projects."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-110?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Health Information Technology
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on patient record matching. The report (GAO-19-197) is titled "Health Information Technology: Approaches and Challenges to Electronically Matching Patients' Records across Providers".The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on patient record matching. The report (GAO-19-197) is titled "Health Information Technology: Approaches and Challenges to Electronically Matching Patients' Records across Providers". The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Stakeholders GAO interviewed, including representatives from physician practices and hospitals, described their approaches for matching patients' records--that is, comparing patient information in different health records to determine if the records refer to the same patient. Stakeholders explained that when exchanging health information with other providers, they match patients' medical records using demographic information, such as the patient's name, date of birth, or sex. This record matching can be done manually or automatically. For example, several provider representatives said that they rely on software that automatically matches records based on the records' demographic information when receiving medical records electronically. Stakeholders said that software can also identify potential matches, which staff then manually review to determine whether the records correspond to the same patient. Stakeholders also said that inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistently formatted demographic information in patients' records can pose challenges to accurate matching. They noted, for example, that records don't always contain correct information (e.g., a patient may provide a nickname rather than a legal name) and that health information technology (IT) systems and providers use different formats for key information such as names that contain hyphens.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified recent or ongoing efforts to improve the data and methods used in patient record matching, such as the following:
Several stakeholders told GAO they worked to improve the consistency with which they format demographic data in their electronic health records (EHR). In 2017, 23 providers in Texas implemented standards for how staff record patients' names, addresses, and other data. Representatives from three hospitals said this increased their ability to match patients' medical records automatically. For example, one hospital's representatives said they had seen a significant decrease in the need to manually review records that do not match automatically.
Stakeholders also described efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of methods used to match patient records. For example, in 2017 the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) hosted a competition for participants to create an algorithm that most accurately matched patient records. ONC selected six winning submissions and plans to report on their analysis of the competition's data.
Stakeholders said more could be done to improve patient record matching, and identified several efforts that could improve matching. For example, some said that implementing common standards for recording demographic data; sharing best practices and other resources; and developing a public-private collaboration effort could each improve matching. Stakeholders' views varied on the roles ONC and others should play in these efforts and the extent to which the efforts would improve matching. For example, some said that ONC could require demographic data standards as part of its responsibility for certifying EHR systems, while other stakeholders said that ONC could facilitate the voluntary adoption of such standards. Multiple stakeholders emphasized that no single effort would solve the challenge of patient record matching."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Health care providers are increasingly sharing patients' health records electronically. When a patient's records are shared with another provider, it is important to accurately match them to the correct patient. GAO and others have reported that accurately matching patient health records is a barrier to health information exchange and that inaccurately matched records can adversely affect patient safety or privacy. At the federal level, ONC is charged with coordinating nationwide efforts to implement and use health IT.
The 21st Century Cures Act included a provision for GAO to study patient record matching. In this report, GAO describes (1) stakeholders' patient record matching approaches and related challenges; and (2) efforts to improve patient record matching identified by stakeholders.
To do its work, GAO reviewed reports by ONC and others about patient record matching. GAO also interviewed various stakeholders that play a role in exchanging health records, including representatives from physician practices, hospitals, health systems, health information exchange organizations, and health IT vendors. GAO also interviewed other stakeholders, such as ONC officials, provider and industry associations, and researchers. GAO selected stakeholders based on background research and input from other stakeholders, and interviewed 37 stakeholders in total. The information from stakeholders is not generalizable. HHS provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-197?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Food and Nutrition Service's efforts to address Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program retailer trafficking. The report (GAO-19-167) is titled "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking".The report was sent to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Jim Jordan, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Food and Nutrition Service's efforts to address Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program retailer trafficking. The report (GAO-19-167) is titled "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking". The report was sent to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Jim Jordan,R-Ohio, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, on Dec. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) estimates of retailer trafficking--when a retailer exchanges Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for cash instead of food--have limitations, though they suggest trafficking has increased in recent years, to $1 billion each year from 2012 to 2014. One key limitation of the estimates is that FNS has not evaluated the accuracy of its assumption about the percentage of SNAP benefits trafficked. FNS assumes that, among stores that trafficked, 90 percent of the benefits redeemed in small stores, and 40 percent in large stores, were trafficked. A former FNS official stated that this assumption is based on discussions with investigators in the 1990s when FNS first developed its approach to estimate trafficking, and that they have not since evaluated it for accuracy. However, there are options available for evaluating this assumption, such as reviewing SNAP transaction data from stores that are known to have trafficked. Statistical standards for federal agencies indicate that assumptions should be reviewed for accuracy and validated using available, independent information sources. By not evaluating this key assumption, FNS's commonly cited estimates of SNAP fraud are potentially inaccurate.
FNS has generally taken steps to address retailer trafficking that align with leading fraud risk management practices, but the agency has not pursued additional actions to prevent and respond to trafficking. For example:
Although FNS assigns a risk level to each store when it applies to participate in SNAP, it is not currently using this information to target its reauthorization activities to stores of greatest risk. During reauthorization, FNS reviews previously approved stores for continued compliance with program requirements. FNS currently reauthorizes all stores on the same 5-year cycle, regardless of risk, although its policy states that it will reauthorize certain high-risk stores annually. FNS officials planned to reauthorize a sample of high-risk stores each year, but said they did not follow through with those plans. Officials also stated that they did not document an analysis of the benefits and costs of this practice, which would be consistent with leading fraud risk management practices. As a result, FNS may be missing an opportunity to provide early oversight of risky stores and prevent trafficking.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 gave USDA the authority to strengthen penalties for retailers found to have trafficked, but as of November 2018, FNS had not implemented this authority. FNS proposed a related rule change in 2012 and indicated the change was necessary to deter retailers from committing program violations, but the rule was not finalized. By failing to take timely action to strengthen penalties, FNS has not taken full advantage of an important tool for deterring trafficking."
Why GAO Did This Study: "SNAP is the largest federally funded nutrition assistance program, providing about $64 billion in benefits to over 20 million households in fiscal year 2017. FNS oversees SNAP at the federal level and is responsible for authorizing and overseeing retailers. While most benefits are used as intended, some retailers have engaged in trafficking, which represents fraud and diverts federal funds from their intended use. GAO was asked to review FNS's efforts to address SNAP retailer trafficking since GAO's last report in 2006.
This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of SNAP retailer trafficking, and (2) the extent to which FNS has taken steps intended to improve how it prevents, detects, and responds to retailer trafficking. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, FNS policies, and studies related to retailer trafficking; assessed FNS's use of statistical standards for federal agencies and selected leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework ; and interviewed FNS and USDA Office of Inspector General officials and key stakeholders."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that FNS improve its trafficking estimates by, for example, evaluating the accuracy of its assumption of the percentage of benefits that are trafficked; assess the benefits and costs of reauthorizing a sample of high risk stores more frequently than others; and move forward with plans to increase penalties for trafficking. FNS generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-167?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Improper Payments
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. The report (GAO-19-112) is titled "Improper Payments: Selected Agencies Need Improvements in Their Assessments to Better Determine and Document Risk Susceptibility".The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, on Jan. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended (IPIA), defines "significant" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. The report (GAO-19-112) is titled "Improper Payments: Selected Agencies Need Improvements in Their Assessments to Better Determine and Document Risk Susceptibility". The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, on Jan. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended (IPIA), defines "significant"improper payments as improper payments in the preceding fiscal year that may have exceeded either (1) 1.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million or (2) $100 million (regardless of the improper payment rate). GAO found that the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury (Treasury), Justice (DOJ), and Agriculture (USDA) assessed the five programs GAO selected for review as at low risk for susceptibility to significant improper payments; however, HHS, Treasury, and DOJ lacked sufficient documentation to assess the extent to which their risk assessments provided a reasonable basis for their risk determinations. On the other hand, USDA's quantitative risk assessment of its program's susceptibility to significant improper payments provided a reasonable basis for its low-risk determination.
Although HHS, Treasury, and DOJ considered, among other factors, the nine risk factors from IPIA and Office of Management and Budget guidance, they did not document or effectively demonstrate how these factors affected their programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments. These programs' risk assessments did not contain sufficient documentation to determine how the agencies arrived at their risk determinations for each risk factor, or how the total scores for all risk factors led to low-risk determinations. For example, HHS determined that its Head Start program was at high risk for several risk factors--including complexity per transaction and volume of payments--but did not document how these high-risk ratings informed its overall determination that Head Start was not susceptible to significant improper payments.
Further, the agencies did not have documentation to demonstrate how they determined the weighting of each risk factor or the risk level ranges from the risk assessment templates as they relate to the programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments. For example, based on GAO's analysis of Treasury's risk assessment template, the agency could identify areas of risk related to each of the nine risk factors. But because of the assigned weights given to each risk factor, Treasury's final risk calculation would still not determine the program to be at high risk of susceptibility to significant improper payments. Without documenting the basis for the assigned weights, Treasury cannot demonstrate, and GAO cannot determine, that its process for determining its programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments was reasonable. Until HHS, Treasury, and DOJ revise their risk assessment processes to help ensure that they result in reliable assessments, they cannot be certain whether their programs are susceptible to significant improper payments and therefore whether they are required to estimate the amount of improper payments.
GAO also found that HHS did not assess many of its programs and activities at least once during the 3-year period from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, as required by IPIA. Based on the analysis of HHS information, GAO identified at least 140 programs or activities that were not assessed during the 3-year period. When not all eligible programs are reviewed as required, there is an increased risk that the agency may not identify all risk-susceptible programs and activities, resulting in incomplete improper payment estimates."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Improper payments are a long-standing problem in the federal government, estimated at almost $141 billion for fiscal year 2017. Agencies are required to perform risk assessments to identify programs that may be susceptible to significant improper payments.
GAO was asked to review federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. This report examines the extent to which certain agencies' improper payment risk assessments for selected programs provided a reasonable basis for determining their susceptibility to significant improper payments. GAO analyzed the most recent risk assessments, from 2015 through 2017, for the following five programs: USDA's Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs; HHS's Head Start; DOJ's Law Enforcement; and Treasury's Interest on the Public Debt and Home Affordable Modification Program. GAO selected these programs, focusing on programs that recently underwent a risk assessment and size of programs' gross outlays--which totaled about $330 billion in fiscal year 2017 for the five programs GAO selected."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that Treasury, DOJ, and HHS revise their improper payment risk assessment processes, and that HHS revise its procedures to help ensure that all programs are assessed at least once every 3 years. In their responses, Treasury and HHS agreed with the recommendations, and DOJ disagreed with GAO's recommendation. GAO continues to believe that the recommendation is valid, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-112?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on VA Real Property
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs faces in disposing of its vacant properties. The report (GAO-19-148) is titled "VA Real Property: Clear Procedures and Improved Data Collection Could Facilitate Property Disposals".The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on Jan. 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Conducting required ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs faces in disposing of its vacant properties. The report (GAO-19-148) is titled "VA Real Property: Clear Procedures and Improved Data Collection Could Facilitate Property Disposals". The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on Jan. 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Conducting requiredenvironmental and historic reviews in a timely manner is among the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces in its real property disposal process. These reviews include assessing the potential effects of property disposals on the environment and historic preservation. VA is taking steps to address these ongoing challenges. For example, VA has established a working group consisting of experts in historic preservation, environmental reviews, and real property to assist facilities' managers in expediting disposals. However, other ongoing challenges remain, including the marketability of VA properties and VA's lack of clear procedures for property disposals. While VA has guidance on disposals at the broad portfolio level, GAO determined that this guidance does not contain step-by-step procedures at the project level to assist facilities' managers to plan, implement, and execute disposals for the different disposal options. (See figure.) For example, a number of managers told GAO that they were not familiar with actions to take when transferring properties to a third party or turning over excess property to the General Services Administration for disposal. VA officials commented that facilities' managers do not frequently dispose of properties, so a procedural document outlining the steps and who is responsible for taking those steps may help staff navigate more complex disposal processes and avoid missteps and delays.
(Figure omitted)
VA has enhanced its data collection on vacant properties, but the agency does not collect information needed to track and monitor disposal projects at the headquarters level. For example, VA requires facilities' managers to verify and certify the validity of vacant property data in the database used to manage real property--the Capital Asset Inventory. On disposal projects, however, VA lacks certain information, such as the status of environmental or historical reviews, to monitor progress. According to VA, the Capital Asset Inventory currently does not have enough capacity to collect key information and supporting documentation. VA officials said they plan to increase the capacity, but VA has not yet included some key information in the Capital Asset Inventory that could enable VA to monitor the progress of disposals. Without information on the status of disposal projects, VA cannot readily track and monitor its progress and identify areas where facilities' managers may need additional assistance."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VA is one of the largest federal property-holding agencies, and its inventory of vacant buildings has generally increased over the last 6 years. Disposing of its excess properties has been a long-standing challenge.
GAO was asked to review how VA manages its real property disposals. This report addresses: (1) the challenges VA faces in disposing of its vacant properties and how it is addressing those challenges and (2) the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its vacant properties.
GAO reviewed VA's policies and planning documents regarding property disposals. GAO also selected 31 properties that were either disposed of or planned for disposal in fiscal year 2017, among other selection criteria. GAO interviewed VA officials and stakeholders involved in the disposal of the 31 selected properties and familiar with VA's disposal process, including steps VA is taking to address challenges."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations. These include developing disposal procedures for facilities' managers to help plan, implement, and execute disposal projects and collecting key information on the status of disposal projects, as VA implements its plans to increase the capacity of VA's Capital Asset Inventory. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-148?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Food Insecurity
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on food insecurity among college students. The report (GAO-19-95) is titled "Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits".The report was sent to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on food insecurity among college students. The report (GAO-19-95) is titled "Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits". The report was sent to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts,on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "There is limited information about the national prevalence of food insecurity among college students. GAO reviewed 31 studies that identified a wide range of food insecurity rates among the students studied, but the studies did not provide national estimates. College students at risk of food insecurity may be eligible for benefits from the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) data shows that almost 2 million at-risk students who were potentially eligible for SNAP did not report receiving benefits in 2016. According to GAO's analysis, having a low income is the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college students. Among low-income students, most have one additional risk factor associated with food insecurity, such as being a first-generation student or a single parent.
The 14 selected colleges that GAO contacted were addressing student food insecurity in a number of ways. For example, all 14 were providing free food to students through on-campus food pantries, and most were offering emergency funds to help students pay for living expenses that might otherwise force them to choose between buying food or staying in school. Many of these colleges had centralized student services to better address their students' basic needs and provide other support, such as screening students for potential eligibility and helping them apply for federal benefit programs like SNAP.
Federal student aid generally does not cover all college costs for low-income students, and college students may have limited access to federal food assistance programs such as SNAP because of program eligibility restrictions. Some state SNAP agencies reported that they are taking steps to help students access SNAP by conducting outreach to colleges and developing guidance. Nevertheless, at 9 of the 14 colleges GAO contacted, some college officials and students said that they were unfamiliar with or did not fully understand SNAP's student eligibility rules. Some college officials said that they would like information from FNS to better explain SNAP student rules, but FNS has not made such information easily accessible on its website. Further, college officials and state SNAP agencies noted that FNS does not share examples of actions taken by other states to help eligible students access SNAP. Clarification of SNAP student eligibility rules and enhanced information sharing about state efforts could help ensure that potentially eligible college students can access federal food assistance programs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Increasing evidence indicates that some college students are experiencing food insecurity, which can negatively impact their academic success. However, college students are only eligible for SNAP in certain cases. Given the substantial federal investment in higher education and the risk posed if students do not complete their degrees, GAO was asked to review food insecurity among college students.
This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the extent to which federal programs assist students experiencing food insecurity. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents and studies on student food insecurity; analyzed 2016 federal student data (the most recent available), and visited four states, selected based on actions taken to address student food insecurity, geographic diversity, and other factors. GAO interviewed researchers; officials from Education, FNS national and regional offices; and officials at 14 colleges, including students at 8 of these colleges. GAO also emailed all state SNAP agencies about their efforts related to students."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FNS (1) improve student eligibility information on its website and (2) share information on state SNAP agencies' approaches to help eligible students. FNS partially concurred, and plans to review its information. GAO continues to believe additional action is warranted, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Protective Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to organizational placement options for Federal Protective Service. The report (GAO-19-122) is titled "Federal Protective Service: DHS Should Take Additional Steps to Evaluate Organizational Placement".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Rep. J. Luis Correa, D-California, and Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, D-Louisiana, on Jan. 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In considering organizational placement options for the Department of Homeland Security's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to organizational placement options for Federal Protective Service. The report (GAO-19-122) is titled "Federal Protective Service: DHS Should Take Additional Steps to Evaluate Organizational Placement". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Rep. J. Luis Correa, D-California, and Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, D-Louisiana, on Jan. 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In considering organizational placement options for the Department of Homeland Security's(DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS), GAO found that none of the eight agencies GAO selected met all the key organizational placement criteria; thus, any of the organizational placement options could result in both benefits and trade-offs. For example, keeping FPS in DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) could provide FPS some benefits because FPS and NPPD have missions that include the protection of infrastructure or specific facilities, facility protection responsibilities, and access to and sharing of information related to national homeland security. However, unlike FPS, NPPD does not perform both physical security and law enforcement activities, which is a potential trade-off. In another example, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States Marshals Service (Marshals) could provide benefits because they currently coordinate with FPS on facility protection. However, Marshals does not have a mission or goals that explicitly focus on the protection of infrastructure or facilities and GSA does not perform law enforcement, which are potential trade-offs.
DHS has not taken key steps to fully assess potential placement options. Specifically, DHS has not assessed the organizational structure of FPS, such as its placement in NPPD, even though FPS and NPPD have evolved since FPS was placed in NPPD in 2010. Standards for Internal Control state that agency management should establish an organizational structure to achieve the agency's objectives and that an effective management practice for attaining this outcome includes periodically evaluating the structure to ensure that it has adapted to changes. Additionally, because DHS did not analyze FPS's current placement in NPPD, DHS does not have a benchmark for comparison to other agencies. DHS recently established a working group to assess the placement of FPS. However, the group's planned activities are limited in several ways. For example, the group's draft charter does not indicate that the working group will describe what DHS expects to achieve by changing FPS's placement. Further, the draft charter does not indicate that the working group will evaluate the benefits and trade-offs of placement options. GAO has previously identified these and other steps as key to successful organizational change or analysis of alternatives. These steps would help DHS address the 2018 legislation to review placement options for FPS--including, how DHS considered the results of GAO's review. Regardless of the legislation, DHS may not be positioning itself to make an informed decision as to what organization best supports FPS."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FPS, within DHS's NPPD, conducts physical security and law enforcement activities for about 9,000 federal facilities and the millions of employees or visitors who work in or visit these facilities. FPS moved from GSA to DHS's ICE in 2003 and to NPPD in 2009. GAO has reported that FPS faced challenges in each location. Legislation enacted in November 2018 requires DHS to review placement options for FPS and could result in FPS moving again within DHS or to another executive branch agency.
GAO was asked to review issues related to organizational placement options for FPS. This report examines (1) the potential effects of FPS's placement in selected agencies and (2) steps DHS has taken to assess placement options for FPS. GAO identified five key organizational placement criteria based on prior work and identified eight agencies as potential placement options. The agencies were selected because they have the largest number of law enforcement officers or perform physical security, among other reasons. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from FPS, selected agencies, and key stakeholders. GAO compared agencies to FPS to determine if they meet the organizational placement criteria. An agency meets the criteria if it has similarities to FPS."
What GAO Recommends: "DHS should identify the expectations for changing FPS's placement and take steps to fully evaluate placement options. DHS concurred with the recommendations and outlined steps it plans to take to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-122?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tobacco Exports
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation of restrictions on promoting tobacco overseas. The report (GAO-19-124) is titled "Tobacco Exports: Agencies Have Implemented Restrictions on Promoting Tobacco Overseas but Additional Actions Could Strengthen Their Efforts".The report was sent to Rep. Karen Bass, D-California, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, on Dec. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation of restrictions on promoting tobacco overseas. The report (GAO-19-124) is titled "Tobacco Exports: Agencies Have Implemented Restrictions on Promoting Tobacco Overseas but Additional Actions Could Strengthen Their Efforts". The report was sent to Rep. Karen Bass, D-California, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, on Dec. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associatedwith the report.
What GAO Found: "Congress has restricted the use of certain appropriated funding to promote tobacco exports and the Departments of State (State), Commerce (Commerce), and Agriculture (USDA) have issued interagency guidance through the cable system that they rely on to implement these restrictions. State collaborates with these and other agencies to periodically update this cable. The cable informs officials about the types of actions they should take--such as providing routine business facilitation services to all U.S. companies--and the types of actions they should not take--such as attending events sponsored by tobacco companies.
Most, but not all, officials overseas that GAO interviewed were aware of the restrictions and received some guidance concerning the restrictions. However, GAO found that some officials did not recall receiving the interagency guidance cable. In addition, State and USDA's current training materials do not address the restrictions. Federal internal control standards state that appropriate training is essential to an organization's operational success. Thus, providing officials overseas with training about the funding restrictions and related guidance would help to ensure that officials are aware of the restrictions.
U.S. officials overseas have implemented restrictions on promoting tobacco, but some officials said that the interagency guidance lacks clarity. Officials said that they have not promoted tobacco by, for example, attending events sponsored solely by tobacco companies. However, officials identified three areas of the guidance that are unclear: (1) attendance at events not sponsored by U.S. tobacco companies but attended by representatives of these companies; (2) the types of services officials can provide tobacco companies; and (3) the description of tobacco products, such as whether component parts for electronic cigarettes are included. Federal standards for internal control state that management should clearly document internal controls in policies and guidance to prevent officials from failing to achieve an objective or address a risk. By providing more specific guidance, the agencies would help ensure that officials consistently implement the funding restrictions on promoting tobacco."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco use kills over 7 million people each year, more than tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria combined. Since the 1990s, Congress has enacted restrictions regarding the use of certain appropriated funds to promote U.S. tobacco exports.
GAO was asked to review the implementation of these restrictions. This report examines (1) guidance select U.S. agencies have issued to implement these restrictions, (2) whether overseas officials from select U.S. agencies were aware of the restrictions and guidance, and (3) select U.S. agencies' implementation of the guidance overseas. GAO reviewed U.S. laws, agency guidance, and internal communications; analyzed Commerce data; and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C. and in 24 offices across 11 overseas posts in 9 countries. GAO selected these countries based on criteria that included U.S. tobacco export totals, smoking rates, and geographic dispersion."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that (1) State and USDA include information about the funding restrictions and guidance in training materials for relevant employees and (2) State, in consultation with Commerce and USDA, assess and update the interagency guidance cable, as needed, on promoting tobacco in light of questions raised by officials at posts overseas. State and USDA concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-124?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Foreign-Trade Zones
WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board's evaluation processes. The report (GAO-19-91) is titled "Foreign-Trade Zones: Board Should Document Consideration of All Required Criteria When Evaluating Applications".The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R- Minnesota, on Nov. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board's evaluation processes. The report (GAO-19-91) is titled "Foreign-Trade Zones: Board Should Document Consideration of All Required Criteria When Evaluating Applications". The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R- Minnesota, on Nov. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) has procedures that generally align with its regulations for evaluating production notifications and followed these procedures for all 59 notifications GAO reviewed. Notifications are filed by companies proposing to bring foreign components into a foreign-trade zone (FTZ) for use in manufacturing finished products, among other purposes. GAO found, for example, that, following Board procedures, Board staff evaluating the notifications collected and considered comments from the general public, industry specialists, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and recommended to the Board whether to authorize companies' proposed activities. Of the 59 notifications GAO reviewed for seven industry categories, 49 notifications either were approved or were approved with restrictions--for example, the proposed activity was authorized for a limited time period or certain duty benefits were denied for one or more foreign components. Ten notifications were denied for reasons such as new or complex policy issues that required further review.
The Board also has procedures that generally align with its regulations for evaluating production applications and followed these procedures for the three applications GAO reviewed. The applications were submitted by three of the companies whose notifications were denied. According to Board staff, if a notification is not approved or is approved with restrictions, a company may submit an application with additional details. Following Board procedures, Board staff, for example, collected and considered comments and recommended to the Board whether to authorize the proposed activities. Two of the applications were approved with restrictions, and the third was not approved. While the regulations require consideration of a number of criteria--for example, consistency with U.S. trade and tariff law--Board staff did not document consideration of all required criteria for two of the three applications, and the procedures do not require such documentation. Board staff said they document only the most relevant criteria in their reports. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should document its rationale for determining a criterion is not relevant and make this documentation readily available for examination. Without such documentation, the Board lacks an institutional record that all required criteria were considered and also lacks assurance that its decisions comply with U.S. trade and tariff law and public policy."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FTZs allow companies to reduce, eliminate, or defer duty payments on foreign goods imported into FTZs for distribution or as components of other products before transferring the finished goods into U.S. commerce or exporting them overseas. The value of foreign and domestic goods admitted to FTZs in 2016 exceeded $610 billion. Responsibilities of the Board, consisting of officials from the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and the Treasury, include evaluating production notifications and applications on the basis of factors such as the proposed activity's net effect on the U.S. economy. Federal regulations set forth requirements, pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934, for these evaluations.
GAO was asked to review the Board's evaluation processes. This report examines the extent to which the Board has established and followed procedures aligned with regulations for evaluating (1) notifications and (2) applications. GAO analyzed the Board's regulations and procedures and interviewed Commerce, Treasury, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. GAO also analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 59 of 293 notifications the Board evaluated from April 2012 through September 2017, which GAO selected to include a range of Board decisions and exclude pending decisions. GAO also analyzed all three applications the Board issued decisions on during that period."
What GAO Recommends: "Commerce should require Board staff to document consideration of all criteria required in the regulations when evaluating production applications. Commerce concurred with this recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-91?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#summary
GAO Issues Report on Navy Readiness
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. The report (GAO-19-229) is titled "Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet".The report was sent to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, and Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, on Nov. 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. The report (GAO-19-229) is titled "Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet". The report was sent to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, and Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, on Nov. 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of itsattack submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance delays and operating and support cost expenditures. GAO's analysis of Navy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and 2018, attack submarines have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards. For example, the Navy originally scheduled the USS Boise to enter a shipyard for an extended maintenance period in 2013 but, due to heavy shipyard workload, the Navy delayed the start of the maintenance period. In June 2016, the USS Boise could no longer conduct normal operations and the boat has remained idle, pierside for over two years since then waiting to enter a shipyard (see figure). GAO estimated that since fiscal year 2008 the Navy has spent more than $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars to support attack submarines that provide no operational capability--those sitting idle while waiting to enter the shipyards, and those delayed in completing their maintenance at the shipyards.
(Figure omitted)
The Navy has started to address challenges related to workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards. However, it has not effectively allocated maintenance periods among public shipyards and private shipyards that may also be available to help minimize attack submarine idle time. GAO's analysis found that while the public shipyards have operated above capacity for the past several years, attack submarine maintenance delays are getting longer and idle time is increasing. The Navy may have options to mitigate this idle time and maintenance delays by leveraging private shipyard capacity for repair work. But the Navy has not completed a comprehensive business case analysis as recommended by Department of Defense guidelines to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. Navy leadership has acknowledged that they need to be more proactive in leveraging potential private shipyard repair capacity. Without addressing this challenge, the Navy risks continued expenditure of operating and support funding to crew, maintain, and support attack submarines that provide no operational capability because they are delayed in getting into and out of maintenance."
Why GAO Did This Study: "According to the Navy, its 51 attack submarines provide the United States an asymmetric advantage to gather intelligence undetected, attack enemy targets, and insert special forces, among others. These capabilities make attack submarines some of the most-requested assets by the global combatant commanders.
GAO was asked to review the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. This report discusses the extent to which the Navy (1) has experienced maintenance delays in its attack submarine fleet and costs associated with any delays; and (2) has addressed any challenges and developed mitigation plans for any maintenance delays. GAO analyzed readiness information from fiscal years 2008-2018, operating and support costs, maintenance performance, and other data; visited attack submarines and squadrons; and interviewed public and private shipyard and fleet officials.
This is a public version of a classified report issued in October 2018. Information the Department of Defense deemed classified or sensitive, such as attack submarine force structure requirements and detailed data on attack submarine maintenance delays, has been omitted."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Navy conduct a business case analysis to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. The Department of Defense concurred with GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-229?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Agent Orange
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. The report (GAO-19-24) is titled "Agent Orange: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations".The report was sent to Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, D-Northern Mariana ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. The report (GAO-19-24) is titled "Agent Orange: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations". The report was sent to Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, D-Northern MarianaIslands, on Nov. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Available shipment documentation indicates that nearly all of the Agent Orange procured was either used in U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia, used for testing, damaged, or destroyed. However, some records are incomplete, such as shipment documentation and logbooks that identify ports where vessels stopped on the way to Southeast Asia. GAO obtained and reviewed shipment documentation for over 12.1 million of the 13.9 million gallons of Agent Orange procured by the Department of Defense (DOD). GAO reviewed logbooks for 96 percent (152 of 158) of those shipments and identified that vessels stopped at various ports on the way to Southeast Asia, including at least one vessel carrying Agent Orange that stopped at Guam. While the logbooks GAO reviewed identify when vessels left various ports as they traveled to and from Vietnam, they do not show whether and how much cargo was loaded or unloaded at those ports.
DOD's official list of herbicide testing and storage locations outside of Vietnam that is posted on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) website is inaccurate and incomplete. For example, the list lacks clarity in descriptive information and omits both testing and storage locations and additional time periods covered by testing events. Also, the list has not been updated in over a decade, though DOD and VA have obtained reports on its shortcomings since 2006. Both DOD and VA communicate with veterans in response to inquiries about Agent Orange, but some veterans GAO met with expressed confusion regarding how to obtain information on potential exposure. DOD officials acknowledged this confusion and stated that veterans are contacting multiple agencies to obtain such information. However, DOD and VA have not established a formal process for coordinating on how best to communicate information to veterans and the public regarding the presence of Agent Orange outside of Vietnam. Without a reliable list with complete and accurate information and a formal process for DOD and VA to coordinate on communicating this information, veterans and the public do not have quality information about the full extent of locations where Agent Orange was present and where exposure could potentially have occurred.
Challenges exist with testing for Agent Orange today due to degradation of the herbicide's two chemical components and a potential for sources of contamination other than the herbicide. According to scientific research, the half-life (average time for components to decrease by half of the original amount) of Agent Orange's two chemical components--n-butyl 2,4-D and n-butyl 2,4,5-T-- in soil can range from several days to many months, depending on conditions. The suggested half-life of the dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD--a by-product of the 2,4,5-T manufacturing process--is much longer, but there are multiple sources of dioxins, including the burning of wood and waste. DOD and the U.S. and Guam Environmental Protection Agencies are testing for the acid form of the components of Agent Orange at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. While acknowledging the low probability of conclusively identifying the components of Agent Orange on Guam, DOD has made a decision to move forward with testing to address veterans' and the public's concerns, and it expects to complete the updates for the sampling and analysis plan, field sampling, analysis, and reporting in early 2019."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The tactical herbicide Agent Orange was first produced in 1964, and some 12 million gallons were shipped from U.S. ports to Southeast Asia from 1965 to 1970. DOD suspended its use in 1970 and incinerated remaining stockpiles at sea in 1977. Congress has expressed long-standing interest in the effects of Agent Orange exposure.
The House report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision that GAO review the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. This report examines (1) information the federal government has about the procurement, distribution, use, and disposition of Agent Orange; (2) DOD and VA efforts to make information about where Agent Orange and its components were tested and stored available; and (3) challenges associated with Agent Orange testing. GAO reviewed agency policies, documents, and available archival records that GAO identified; interviewed DOD, VA, and other agency officials; and met with a non-generalizable sample of 38 veterans and a veterans service organization."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD develop a process for updating its list of Agent Orange testing and storage locations, and that DOD and VA develop a process for coordinating the communication of information on where Agent Orange was known to have been present. DOD concurred with four recommendations. VA concurred with one recommendation and non-concurred with one recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-24?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery