GAO Reports
News stories and news briefs of Government Accountability Office audits, news, reports and testimony.
Featured Stories
GAO Issues Report on Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Agencies
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund agencies. The report (GAO-20-65) is titled "Defense Management: Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Agencies Apply Most Key Operating Principles but Should Improve Pricing Transparency".
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 Nov. 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS),
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund agencies. The report (GAO-20-65) is titled "Defense Management: Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund Agencies Apply Most Key Operating Principles but Should Improve Pricing Transparency".
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 Nov. 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS),Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) use a combination of approaches to set rates that are intended to recover their costs and equitably allocate costs to customers. However, DFAS, DISA, and DLA have not provided transparent pricing to the military departments, which are their largest customers. Each agency annually develops budget proposals designed to recover projected costs and account for gains or losses from prior years. DFAS, DISA, and DLA have taken steps intended to establish an equitable pricing methodology. For example, DLA changed its pricing method for distribution services to align the rates customers pay with DLA's costs of providing the service. However, customers from the military departments said they lack visibility into the factors that determine their overall costs at one or more of the three defense agencies, including how indirect costs are allocated and included in the rates they are charged. GAO's review of cost and rate documentation provided to the military departments also found that they provide high-level information, such as the rates and estimated workloads, and did not include details about the types of costs included or how they are calculated. Specifically,
(1) DFAS informational briefings do not describe the types of costs included in rates and how those costs are calculated and allocated. As a result, customers from the Army and Navy said they were confused about why declines in their use of DFAS's services have not resulted in reduced costs.
(2) DISA does not include in its documentation the methodology it uses to calculate its rates, making it difficult for officials from the Air Force to determine how they can manage their costs with DISA.
(3) DLA does not provide detailed information on the costs included in its rates, making it difficult for customers from the Navy and Air Force to determine how to lower their costs or, in the case of the Air Force, understand the cost implications of DLA's newly announced pricing initiative.
Because DFAS, DISA, and DLA share only high-level information on their rate-setting methodologies, the military departments have been limited in their abilities to understand and manage the costs they pay for the services they obtain. By providing more complete information on rate setting, including the calculation and use of costs, DFAS , DISA , and DLA could help their customers better manage their costs and make more informed budgeting decisions. Improved transparency could also help customers anticipate how potential changes to the assumptions underlying rates could affect future costs.
GAO also found that DFAS, DISA, and DLA clearly delineate roles and responsibilities, measure performance, and assess resource requirements and customer needs for goods and services, as called for by the three remaining key operating principles for effective working capital fund management. As a result, these agencies are positioned to promote a clear understanding of who will be held accountable for specific tasks or duties, reduce the risk of mismanaged funds, measure their operational performance and identify opportunities to improve performance, and use resources most effectively."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As DOD continues to focus its resources on improving military readiness and modernizing its forces, it seeks to minimize costs associated with its business operations. DFAS, DISA, and DLA are financed through the Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF). Collectively, they provide shared services and goods to their customers, including finance and accounting services; information technology services; and fuel provision and inventory management.
Senate Report 115-262, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, includes a provision that GAO evaluate the activities DWWCF agencies fund through overhead charges and fees collected from customers. This report evaluates the extent to which DFAS, DISA, and DLA (1) have a process for setting rates to recover costs and provide transparent pricing to customers and (2) clearly delineate roles and responsibilities, measure performance, and assess resource requirements and customer needs. GAO reviewed relevant sections of DOD's Financial Management Regulation and agency documentation and interviewed officials from DFAS, DISA, and DLA and the military departments in comparing the agencies' management practices to the key operating principles for effective management of working capital funds."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DFAS, DISA, and DLA provide more complete information to customers on their rate-setting methodologies. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-65?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Agencies IT Workforce Planning Practices
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on government-wide review of information technology workforce planning. The report (GAO-20-129) is titled "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Fully Implement Key Workforce Planning Activities".
The report was sent to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on government-wide review of information technology workforce planning. The report (GAO-20-129) is titled "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Fully Implement Key Workforce Planning Activities".
The report was sent to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas,and Rep. Robin L. Kelly, D-Illinois, on Oct. 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal agencies varied widely in their efforts to implement key information technology (IT) workforce planning activities that are critical to ensuring that agencies have the staff they need to support their missions. Specifically, at least 23 of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed partially implemented, substantially implemented, or fully implemented three activities, including assessing gaps in competencies and staffing. However, most agencies minimally implemented or did not implement five other workforce planning activities (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-129?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Agencies provided various reasons for their limited progress in implementing workforce planning activities, including competing priorities (six agencies), and limited resources (three agencies). Until agencies make it a priority to fully implement all key IT workforce planning activities, they will likely have difficulty anticipating and responding to changing staffing needs and controlling human capital risks when developing, implementing, and operating critical IT systems."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government annually spends over $90 billion on IT. Despite this large investment, projects too frequently fail or incur cost overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. Effectively implementing workforce planning activities can facilitate the success of major acquisitions.
GAO was asked to conduct a government-wide review of IT workforce planning. The objective was to determine the extent to which federal agencies effectively implemented IT workforce planning practices. To do so, GAO compared IT workforce policies and related documentation from each of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 agencies to activities from an IT workforce planning framework GAO issued. GAO rated each agency as having fully, substantially, partially, minimally, or not implemented for each activity. GAO supplemented its reviews of agency documentation by interviewing agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making recommendations to 18 of the 24 federal agencies to fully implement the eight key IT workforce planning activities. Of the 18 agencies, 13 agreed with the recommendations, one partially agreed, three neither agreed nor disagreed, and one disagreed with the findings and provided evidence which led to a modification to its recommendation, as discussed in this report. For all of the remaining recommendations, GAO continues to believe that they are all warranted."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-129?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Space Command, Control Capabilities
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's newest efforts to develop space command and control capabilities. The report (GAO-20-146) is titled "Space Command and Control: Comprehensive Planning and Oversight Could Help DOD Acquire Critical Capabilities and Address 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
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's newest efforts to develop space command and control capabilities. The report (GAO-20-146) is titled "Space Command and Control: Comprehensive Planning and Oversight Could Help DOD Acquire Critical Capabilities and Address 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 SenateAppropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Oct. 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Given emerging and evolving threats in the space domain, as well as significant development problems in similar prior efforts, the Air Force is prioritizing the Space Command and Control (C2) program. Early prototype work on the program's software began in 2016. As of mid-2019, the program had delivered some initial capabilities; however, the capabilities delivered so far are not approved for use in operations. Because the program is still early in development, it has not yet established a time frame for certifying these capabilities for operational use. Further, the foundational elements of the program, including the infrastructure and software platform, are still being conceptualized. All Space C2 program capabilities will be significantly more automated than past development efforts and are being designed to allow operators to identify and monitor threats to U.S. space assets, identify courses of action to mitigate or eliminate those threats, communicate these actions to decision makers, and direct actions in response.
To develop Space C2's technologically complex software, the Air Force is following a modernized, iterative process called Agile development--a relatively new approach for Department of Defense (DOD) programs (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-146?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Space C2 program is facing a number of challenges and unknowns, from management issues to technical complexity. Additionally, DOD officials have not yet determined what level of detail is appropriate for acquisition planning documentation for Agile software programs. They are also not certain about the best way to provide oversight of these programs but are considering using assessments by external experts. These knowledge gaps run counter to DOD and industry best practices for acquisition and put the program at risk of not meeting mission objectives. Additionally, software integration and cybersecurity challenges exist, further complicating program development. The Air Force has efforts underway to mitigate some of these challenges in the near term, but until the program develops a comprehensive acquisition strategy to more formally plan the program, it is too early to determine whether these efforts will help to ensure long-term program success."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since the early 1980s, the Air Force has been working to modernize and consolidate its space command and control systems into a single comprehensive platform. The past three programs to attempt this have ended up significantly behind schedule and over budget. They also left key capabilities undelivered, meeting the easier requirements first and deferring more difficult work to subsequent programs. At the same time, the need for a consolidated space command and control capability has been growing.
The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 contained a provision for GAO to review DOD's newest efforts to develop space command and control capabilities. This report describes the status of these efforts and identifies challenges the Air Force faces in bringing them to fruition.
To conduct this work, GAO analyzed acquisition and strategy documentation, management directives, and lessons learned; and compared Air Force development plans with leading industry practices for software development, DOD guidelines, and best practices included in a draft GAO guide for assessing Agile software development programs."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations, including that DOD should ensure the Air Force develops a comprehensive acquisition strategy for the Space C2 program. DOD concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-146?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOE Payments in Lieu of Taxes
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's payments in lieu of taxes. The report (GAO-20-122) is titled "Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Revisions to DOE Order Could Provide Better Assurance That Payments Meet Goals".
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, chairwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's payments in lieu of taxes. The report (GAO-20-122) is titled "Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Revisions to DOE Order Could Provide Better Assurance That Payments Meet Goals".
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, chairwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommitteeon Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on Oct. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) payments in lieu of taxes (PILT)--payments made to some local communities that host DOE sites--vary considerably across the sites and have generally increased over time. Communities at 11 DOE sites received PILT payments in fiscal year 2017 (the most recent fiscal year for which complete data were available), totaling approximately $23 million (see figure). Payments to communities at the Hanford and Savannah River sites accounted for approximately 70 percent of that total, while payments to six sites combined accounted for less than 5 percent. Total PILT payments have more than doubled since 1994, primarily because of growth in payments to communities at the Hanford and Savannah River sites and because communities at other sites began receiving payments since 1994.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-122?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
DOE intentionally allows for variations of payments across sites so that payments may reflect the revenues communities would have received had the property remained on the tax rolls in the condition in which it was acquired, which DOE officials stated is a goal of PILT. However, DOE's PILT order's lack of requirements has limited DOE's ability to provide adequate assurance that payments consistently meet this and other PILT goals. The PILT order does not require documentation of the key determinants that went into the calculation of payments, or an independent review process to determine whether payment calculations are consistent with PILT goals. The PILT order also lacks specificity about payment determinations in certain scenarios. Without updates to the PILT order to strengthen DOE's internal controls, DOE will continue to lack adequate assurance that payments meet PILT goals."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Atomic Energy Act, as amended, authorizes DOE to make PILT payments to communities that host DOE sites that meet specific criteria. PILT is discretionary financial assistance that provides payments to communities based on the property taxes they would have received had the property remained on their tax rolls.
House Report 115-230 accompanying a bill for the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2018 included a provision for GAO to review DOE PILT. This report assesses (1) how PILT payments vary, if at all, by site and over time, and (2) reasons for variations in payments and the extent to which DOE is providing assurance that payments meet PILT goals.
GAO analyzed data on DOE payments to communities that DOE reported as having received PILT payments between 2008 and 2017. GAO compared 2017 data across sites and identified changes in payments to those communities between 1994 and 2017. GAO reviewed PILT's authorizing statute, DOE's PILT order, and PILT documentation. GAO interviewed officials from DOE, communities, and community organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations that DOE update its PILT order to: improve collection and documentation of key determinants of PILT payments, implement a review process, and clarify how communities should calculate payment requests. DOE neither agreed nor disagreed and plans instead to further study PILT. We believe our report supports implementation of these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-122?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Infrastructure Projects Covered Under FAST-41
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the steps the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has taken to develop performance schedules for the 10 infrastructure sectors. The report (GAO-20-19) is titled "Infrastructure Projects: Actions Needed to Fully Develop Performance Schedules for Environmental Reviews".
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. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the steps the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has taken to develop performance schedules for the 10 infrastructure sectors. The report (GAO-20-19) is titled "Infrastructure Projects: Actions Needed to Fully Develop Performance Schedules for Environmental Reviews".
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. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Securityand Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Oct. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO found that the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council's (Permitting Council) process for developing and assessing member agencies' implementation of best practices for environmental reviews and authorizations, as required by Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), was generally consistent with key features of effective interagency collaboration that GAO has previously identified, such as having shared goals and establishing mechanisms to measure performance.The Permitting Council, an interagency body established by FAST-41, oversees the implementation of FAST-41's provisions to streamline the federal permitting process.
As of July 2019, the Permitting Council has not issued performance schedules for ten infrastructure sectors, as mandated by FAST-41, due to a lack of sufficient project data and resource constraints. These schedules are to serve as baselines for environmental reviews and authorizations for projects covered under FAST-41. The Permitting Council has taken steps to develop performance schedules for the three infrastructure sectors--pipelines, renewable energy production, and electricity transmission--that account for 80 percent of the 43 FAST-41 projects (see figure). GAO found that the process the Permitting Council used to develop draft performance schedules for the three sectors did not fully implement two of three selected best practices for project schedules identified by GAO: (1) maintaining the baseline schedule and (2) conducting an analysis of potential risks. For example, the Permitting Council's process included identifying the relevant environmental review actions for infrastructure projects, but it did not take into account how potential risks, such as incomplete applications by project sponsors, could result in delays of the actions. Without incorporating these selected best practices, the Permitting Council will be constrained in developing defensible performance schedules against which to evaluate whether the FAST-41 process has improved the environmental review and authorization process."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-19?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "FAST-41 outlined specific procedures for improving the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of the environmental review and authorization process for certain infrastructure projects in 10 specific sectors, including pipelines, renewable energy projects, and electricity transmission.
Congress included provisions in statute for GAO to review the efforts of the Permitting Council to implement FAST-41. This report examines, among other objectives, the Permitting Council's process for developing and assessing implementation of best practices for environmental reviews, and the steps the Permitting Council has taken to develop performance schedules for the 10 infrastructure sectors. GAO reviewed the Permitting Council's documents and guidance; evaluated the council's process for developing performance schedules against selected GAO best practices related to the development of the schedules; and interviewed officials from federal agencies that are members of the Permitting Council, as well as selected project sponsors selected based on several factors, including projects' status and infrastructure sector."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Executive Director of the Permitting Council incorporate selected best practices into its process for developing performance schedules for infrastructure projects covered under FAST-41. The Executive Director agreed with the recommendation and described current and planned actions to address it."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-19?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on U.S. Assistance to Central America
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the projects the U.S. government has implemented from fiscal years 2013 through 2018 to support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America's objectives in the Northern Triangle. The report (GAO-19-590) is titled "U.S. Assistance to Central America: Department of State Should Establish a Comprehensive Plan to Assess Progress toward Prosperity, Governance, and Security".
The report was sent to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, chairman,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the projects the U.S. government has implemented from fiscal years 2013 through 2018 to support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America's objectives in the Northern Triangle. The report (GAO-19-590) is titled "U.S. Assistance to Central America: Department of State Should Establish a Comprehensive Plan to Assess Progress toward Prosperity, Governance, and Security".
The report was sent to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 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. Albio Sires, D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Rep. Paul Cook, R-California, on Sept. 26. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "To support their prosperity, governance, and security objectives, the Departments of State (State), Defense (DOD), Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated about $2.4 billion from fiscal years 2013 through 2018 for 370 projects in the Northern Triangle--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. USAID and State implemented most of these projects, with some supporting more than one sector and objective. For example, USAID implemented projects to address poverty, while State trained prosecutors and police to address governance and security needs.
State, USAID, and other agencies reported mixed results for the 190 projects in the six sectors GAO reviewed. For example, in fiscal year 2018, USAID assisted 1,376 individuals in workforce development programs in Guatemala, exceeding the target of 1,000, while it assisted 651 individuals in Honduras, falling short of the target of 5,000. State and USAID trained 12,557 justice system personnel in the Northern Triangle, exceeding the target of 2,275. USDA rehabilitated school kitchens in Honduras as part of its school feeding program. DOD helped Guatemala establish a budget system to increase accountability for military funds, but DOD reported persistently low public trust in Northern Triangle militaries.
Limited information is available about how U.S. assistance improved prosperity, governance, and security in the Northern Triangle. Agencies generally reported more information about progress toward prosperity than toward governance and security, in part because evaluations were conducted unevenly across agencies and sectors. In addition, project implementers did not consistently collect key information needed to evaluate progress, but officials noted improvements. Nevertheless, agency officials described examples of progress through technical assistance, and noted challenges, such as drought. GAO has reported that development of a monitoring and evaluation plan is key to assessing agencies' common goals and objectives, and mutually reinforcing results. While State has a monitoring and evaluation plan for the Strategy, the plan does not include activities by DOD and USDA that support the Strategy's objectives and thus does not establish a comprehensive approach to assessing progress."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The United States has provided assistance to the Northern Triangle of Central America for many years to address poverty, weak governance, and insecurity. Introduced in 2014, and updated in 2017, the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America (Strategy) supports the objectives of improving prosperity, governance, and security. State coordinates implementation of the Strategy's objectives among agencies. This report examines: (1) the projects the U.S. government has implemented from fiscal years 2013 through 2018 to support the Strategy's objectives in the Northern Triangle, (2) what is known about project results, and (3) what is known about progress toward the objectives.
GAO reviewed results for a subset of 190 projects in a nongeneralizable sample of six sectors selected based on funding, country, and objective; analyzed Strategy documents and key elements of effective strategies; interviewed officials; and conducted fieldwork in the Northern Triangle."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State collaborate with DOD and USDA to develop a comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluation of projects that support Strategy objectives. State did not concur, citing lack of authority to direct other agencies' actions. GAO modified the recommendation to clarify that a collaborative effort would allow State to include information about all relevant projects as it evaluates progress under the Strategy as discussed in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-590?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Religious-Based Hate Crimes on College Campuses
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on religious-based hate crimes on college campuses. The report (GAO-20-6) is titled "Religious-Based Hate Crimes: DOJ Needs to Improve Support to Colleges Given Increasing Reports on Campuses".
The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, on Oct. 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Data from the Departments of Education (Education) and Justice (DOJ) show an increasing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on religious-based hate crimes on college campuses. The report (GAO-20-6) is titled "Religious-Based Hate Crimes: DOJ Needs to Improve Support to Colleges Given Increasing Reports on Campuses".
The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, on Oct. 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Data from the Departments of Education (Education) and Justice (DOJ) show an increasingnumber of reported religious-based hate crimes on college campuses during the past decade. While these agencies collect slightly different data, crimes reported to Education have increased from 103 in 2009 to 189 in 2017, and crimes reported to DOJ increased from 24 to 59. These trends were largely driven by increased reports of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim crimes, according to DOJ data. However, DOJ officials and some stakeholders GAO interviewed said DOJ data likely undercount these crimes due to underreporting. Although no federal agencies collect data on the frequency of religious bias incidents--non-criminal acts motivated by bias against a religious group--representatives of eight of the sixteen stakeholder groups GAO interviewed said the prevalence of these incidents on college campuses is also increasing.
To prevent and respond to religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on campuses, stakeholders GAO interviewed said some colleges have encouraged reporting, implemented new policies, and educated students and staff about their effects. Such efforts must be informed by First Amendment considerations at public colleges. Some colleges have also worked to promote religious tolerance, communicate publicly about crimes, and build relationships with religious groups.
Education and DOJ provide information and other resources to help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents, but key DOJ information does not reflect new trends--such as changes in technology--and is difficult to find. For example, DOJ's publication most relevant to religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on campuses and college practices to combat them was published in 2001 and does not reflect new trends or evolving college practices to address them. Further, colleges wishing to learn about DOJ resources must review almost 80 linked webpages or be routed to the homepages of five DOJ offices. DOJ officials said they share information about agency resources with colleges via newsletters, presentations, or the agency's website, but 10 out of 16 stakeholder groups GAO interviewed said they or their college members were unaware of DOJ's resources. Until DOJ makes up-to-date information easy to find and shares this information with colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders, these groups may miss opportunities to effectively use the resources to address these crimes and bias incidents."
Why GAO Did This Study: "On average, 205,000 U.S. residents report being victims of hate crimes every year, according to DOJ officials. Hate crimes, including those motivated by bias against an actual or perceived religion, can have a broader effect than other kinds of violent crimes because they target both the victim and the group the victim represents. GAO was asked to review religious-based hate crimes on college campuses.
This report reviews 1) the prevalence of religious-based hate crimes and bias incidents on college campuses; 2) what steps colleges are taking to address them; and 3) the extent to which Education and DOJ help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address these crimes and bias incidents.
GAO analyzed DOJ and Education hate crime data from 2009 through 2017, the years for which all relevant data are available. GAO reviewed studies to identify college practices to address this issue as well as Education and DOJ policies, programs, and resources that could help colleges, campus law enforcement, and other stakeholders monitor and address these crimes and bias incidents, and how the information is shared. GAO also interviewed representatives of 16 stakeholder groups, including college associations, campus and public safety organizations, and religious groups."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOJ update, centralize, and share more information about its resources to help address religious-based hate crimes on college campuses. DOJ agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-6?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Investments in Dairy Processing for Farmers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to dairy cooperatives and the U.S. dairy industry. The report (GAO-19-695R) is titled "Dairy Cooperatives: Potential Implications of Consolidation and Investments in Dairy Processing for Farmers".
The report was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee on Livestock, Marketing and Agriculture Security, on Sept. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Farmers use dairy cooperatives to market milk. As dairy cooperatives
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to dairy cooperatives and the U.S. dairy industry. The report (GAO-19-695R) is titled "Dairy Cooperatives: Potential Implications of Consolidation and Investments in Dairy Processing for Farmers".
The report was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee on Livestock, Marketing and Agriculture Security, on Sept. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Farmers use dairy cooperatives to market milk. As dairy cooperativesconsolidate and fewer cooperatives remain, cooperatives are more likely to represent farmers with diverse and possibly competing interests across a wider geographic region. These cooperatives may represent farmers whose farms differ in characteristics such as size, type of operations, and ownership. Therefore, farmers within a cooperative can have different expectations of and needs from their cooperative. Competing interests may make farmers feel that they have lost control over the cooperative's priorities and its strategic direction. Moreover, the voting structure of a cooperative with a diverse membership can create power imbalances based on farm size, favoring small or large farms depending on whether voting rights are equally distributed or based on member productivity.
Increased market access from a cooperative's investments in milk processing--including manufacturing of dairy products such as butter, cheese, and yogurt--may result in higher earnings for farmers in the cooperative while potentially reducing market access for farmers outside of the cooperative. To generate the equity necessary for investments in dairy processing and other purposes, cooperatives use financing mechanisms including retention of earnings that would otherwise be paid out in cash to members (through patronage refunds) and issuance of preferred stock. Each of these mechanisms can affect farmers' earnings. For example, farmers may be able to capture additional earnings when they own preferred stock because they have a higher claim to any earnings the cooperative distributes when compared with farmers without preferred stock. A cooperative's retention of patronage refunds for investments in dairy processing can reduce farmers' earnings in the short term, with expectations of long-term gains when the cooperative undertakes investments that may increase earnings."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Farmer-owned dairy cooperatives are a major player in the U.S. dairy industry; in 2017, cooperatives handled nearly 85 percent of the milk marketed by U.S. producers. Dairy cooperatives perform a wide range of services for their member farmers, including negotiating with dairy processors on behalf of farmers for price and other terms of sale, such as quality and timing of delivery.
As the U.S. dairy industry has consolidated, decreasing the number of dairy farms and increasing the average farm size, cooperatives have consolidated as well. As a result, the number of cooperatives marketing farmers' milk in the United States has decreased significantly over time. Some of the remaining cooperatives now cover larger regions. Also, in efforts to capture earnings from the sale of products made from milk, some cooperatives have diversified from solely marketing farmers' milk to also owning and operating facilities to process, manufacture, and market various dairy products.
GAO was asked to review issues related to dairy cooperatives and the U.S. dairy industry. This report describes what is known about how the consolidation of dairy cooperatives and their investments in dairy processing may affect farmers. GAO reviewed government publications, including from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, peer-reviewed literature on cooperatives, and cooperative governance documents. GAO also interviewed agency officials and dairy industry stakeholders, including academics who study the industry, farmers, and representatives from farm associations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-695R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
