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 Civilian Marksmanship Program
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on matters related to the transfer and subsequent sale of the surplus Army firearms to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-555R) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Army Funded Report Addresses Various Aspects of the Sale of Surplus 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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on matters related to the transfer and subsequent sale of the surplus Army firearms to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-555R) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Army Funded Report Addresses Various Aspects of the Sale of Surplus 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 SenateAppropriations 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 June 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found
GAO found that the RAND report, An Evaluation of the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, about matters related to the transfer and subsequent sale of the surplus Army firearms to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) addressed all five elements required in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018.
To accomplish this, RAND:
-assessed how effectively CMP fulfilled its mission,
-compared CMP with other nonprofit organizations with similar missions,
-evaluated the benefits the Army received from CMP,
- assessed CMP's current and prospective funding models if the Army were to stop providing surplus firearms for sale, and
- identified the costs and potential profits to CMP associated with the transfer of surplus M1911 handguns.
GAO found no significant issues with the methodologies RAND used to evaluate CMP, but identified some inconsistencies in how RAND reported some of the information about CMP. For example, when reporting on CMP's effectiveness and comparing CMP to similar organizations, RAND at times combined data from CMP and its affiliate clubs and other times reported data from CMP and its affiliated clubs separately. According to RAND officials, the data were reported in the format they were provided to RAND. RAND also did not consistently specify whether calendar year or fiscal year data were used in its analyses, which can result in differences. However, according to RAND officials, steps were taken during their assessment to ensure that data were accurately aligned based on the timeframes used in the RAND report.
The findings of the RAND report on CMP had three notable differences from GAO's February 2019 report on CMP in areas where both reports had overlapping scopes. However, these differences did not impact RAND's conclusions:
(1) RAND identified about $300,000 from fiscal year 2013 through 2017 in unreimbursed costs to the Army for the transfer of surplus firearms, whereas
GAO reported in February 2019, that, according to Army officials, there were no unreimbursed costs. In May 2019, Army officials informed us that they were examining the costs RAND identified and that their review would be completed by the end of fiscal year 2019.
(2) RAND valued what it referred to as CMP's Core Endowment Fund at about $242 million as of the end of fiscal year 2017, which was significantly higher than GAO's reported value of $188.6 million. However, unlike the value reported by GAO, RAND's valuation included CMP's property and inventory, among other assets, less liabilities.
(3) RAND identified about $240,000 more in startup costs for CMP's program to refurbish and sell surplus M1911 handguns than GAO reported in February 2019. GAO determined that the higher amount reported by RAND was due to the inclusion of costs into 2018 not included in the scope of the GAO report in addition to costs that were not described in CMP's internal financial documents we reviewed or in our discussions with CMP officials."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1996, the Army has transferred more than 700,000 surplus rifles and handguns to CMP. CMP is authorized to sell certain types of surplus Army firearms to U.S. citizens, including M1 .30 caliber rifles and more recently M1911 .45 caliber handguns. 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, ammunition, repair parts, and other supplies.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 required the Army during fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to transfer surplus M1911 handguns to CMP, including not fewer than 8,000 in fiscal year 2018 and not more than 10,000 in any fiscal year. The Act included a provision for GAO to review certain matters related to CMP, while also requiring the Army to conduct a parallel evaluation of CMP using a federally funded research and development center. The Army included the evaluation as part of a task order under an existing contract with the RAND Corporation. GAO issued its report on February 14, 2019 and RAND issued its report on January 23, 2019.
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 also required GAO to review the RAND report. GAO (1) assessed whether the RAND report addressed the five elements specified in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 and identified any limitations with RAND's methodologies for addressing the elements, and (2) explained any notable differences between the RAND report's findings and GAO's February 2019 report.
GAO reviewed the RAND report, An Evaluation of the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, to determine whether the report addressed each of the five elements specified in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 and to identify any methodological concerns that would potentially affect RAND's conclusions. In addition, GAO compared RAND's assessment of the benefits and costs of the CMP to the Army against the elements of an economic analysis as defined in GAO's Assessment Methodology for Economic Analysis. GAO also identified any notable differences between the RAND report and GAO's February 2019 report, and met with officials from the Army, RAND, the Defense Logistics Agency, and CMP to discuss RAND's methodologies and results."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-555R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Infrastructure
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's management of historic properties in use on U.S. installations. The report (GAO-19-335) is titled "Defense Infrastructure: Additional Actions Could Enhance DOD's Efforts to Identify, Evaluate, and Preserve Historic Properties".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's management of historic properties in use on U.S. installations. The report (GAO-19-335) is titled "Defense Infrastructure: Additional Actions Could Enhance DOD's Efforts to Identify, Evaluate, and Preserve Historic Properties". 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,Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and Related Agencies, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on June 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that it has identified and evaluated about 60,000 of its approximately 375,000 properties on installations as historic as of October 2017. DOD's practice is to identify and evaluate property for historic significance as installations have an identified need for or a project planned for the property, according to DOD officials. However, GAO identified opportunities for DOD to enhance its efforts in several areas.
* DOD lacks complete and consistent data on historic properties. Specifically, GAO identified data gaps and discrepancies between the data reported at the installation and department levels for fiscal year 2017. For example, for one installation, GAO found that 150 more historic properties were listed in its installation data than were listed in department-level data for that installation. In November 2018, GAO reported on issues concerning DOD's data and made recommendations to improve the data quality. DOD concurred and reported actions it plans to take to improve data quality. Doing so would help DOD to ensure it has complete information on properties of historic significance and prevent further data discrepancies.
* DOD has limited visibility of privatized homes that could be historic. When the military departments transferred military homes to private developers, DOD officials said they also transferred the responsibility to identify and evaluate homes for historic significance to the private developers. However, the military departments do not verify that private developers are doing so. Private developers at seven of the nine installations with privatized housing that GAO visited said they do not identify or evaluate homes for historic significance. Taking steps to verify that private developers carry out this responsibility could help DOD ensure that renovations or repairs are not made to privatized properties that could compromise their historic nature.
Additionally, DOD does not routinely assess the condition of its historic properties and a lack of guidance on training could hamper maintenance and preservation efforts. First, inventories of historic properties, including physical inspections, required every 3 years, are not being conducted at six of the 10 installations GAO visited. Officials at these six installations said that the inventory was not conducted because they were unaware of or misunderstood the requirement. Second, while each installation GAO visited had an established process for approving maintenance work orders, DOD officials reported problems with the maintenance of historic properties at these installations, ranging from maintenance personnel not addressing issues, to maintenance being conducted improperly. At nine of the 10 installations GAO visited, individuals who work in historic buildings said that they believed maintenance personnel did not know what maintenance could or could not be done to the historic buildings, and installation officials expressed concerns about a lack of training related to historic preservation. By clarifying the requirement to conduct a physical inventory and developing guidance on training, DOD would be better positioned to preserve the historic properties under its purview."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires each federal agency to establish a preservation program that ensures properties are identified and evaluated for historic significance, as well as managed and maintained in a way that considers their preservation.
Senate Report 115-130 accompanying a bill for the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018, included a provision that GAO assess DOD's management of historic properties in use on U.S. installations. This report examines the extent to which DOD (1) identifies and evaluates properties for historic significance, including those that have been privatized, and (2) assesses the condition of its historic properties and has guidance on the training of installation personnel maintaining and those working in historic properties. GAO reviewed DOD fiscal year 2017 real property data and policies and procedures; visited a non-generalizable sample of 10 installations, selecting them based factors such as military service representation and concentration of historic properties; and interviewed DOD officials, privatized housing developers, and installation personnel."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that DOD take steps to verify that privatized military homes are identified and evaluated for historic significance; clarify the inventory requirement for historic properties; and develop guidance related to historic preservation training. DOD concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-335?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Housing Administration
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Administration's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. The report (GAO-19-517) is titled "Federal Housing Administration: Improved Procedures and Assessment Could Increase Efficiency of Foreclosed Property Conveyances".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. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Administration's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. The report (GAO-19-517) is titled "Federal Housing Administration: Improved Procedures and Assessment Could Increase Efficiency of Foreclosed Property Conveyances". 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 member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, on June 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From July 2010 through December 2017, the process for conveying foreclosed properties to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) took a median of 70 days. The conveyance process--which GAO measured from a mortgage servicer's obtaining title to and possession of the property to FHA's marketing of the property--involves servicers making repairs, transferring ownership, and filing a mortgage insurance claim, and FHA inspecting the property. FHA attributes the length of time to complete the process partly to foreclosure processing delays that left properties vulnerable to damage and vandalism, which can increase the time servicers need to bring properties into conveyance condition. Property damage also may increase the likelihood that FHA will reconvey a property (transfer it to the servicer) for not complying with condition standards, further extending the conveyance process. For about 55 percent of properties conveyed in July 2010-December 2017, servicers exceeded the required time to obtain title and possession of a foreclosed property and convey it to FHA. For 2017 alone, the corresponding figure was 72 percent. As a result, servicers were not eligible to be reimbursed for all repairs and interest expenses for those properties when filing insurance claims with FHA.
In recent years, FHA changed aspects of its conveyance process to help address some of the execution challenges the agency and servicers have faced. For example, in 2016, FHA enhanced its data system for conveyed properties to reduce manual administrative processing. FHA also began a pilot program in 2017 to decrease the number of properties FHA reconveys by inspecting properties before conveyance. However, GAO found shortcomings in FHA policies, procedures, and assessment efforts that are inconsistent with federal evaluation criteria and internal control standards, as follows:
* FHA's policies and procedures lack detail that could help servicers and contractors determine if a property is in compliance, and the agency has not examined alternative methods of communicating this information. Fifteen of the 20 servicers GAO interviewed said existing policies, procedures, and communications often were not clear or specific enough to address property conditions or repair decisions they encountered. FHA also relies on brief written policies to explain standards and makes limited or no use of other methods, such as photographs or industry-wide calls.
* FHA has not provided written direction on when to use alternatives to reconveyance--such as agreements under which servicers make repairs or repay FHA for any repair costs after conveyance--for properties not meeting condition standards. In the absence of such direction, FHA may not be addressing these properties in the most consistent or effective manner.
* FHA has not developed a plan to assess the outcome of its inspection pilot. Without rigorous assessment, FHA risks making decisions about the future of the pilot based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
Addressing these shortcomings could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FHA's property conveyance process."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FHA insures hundreds of thousands of single-family home mortgages annually. When an FHA borrower defaults, the mortgage servicer in many cases forecloses, obtains title to the property, and conveys ownership to FHA. FHA inspects the property, acquires it if it complies with condition standards and title requirements, and lists the property for sale. FHA may reconvey noncompliant properties to servicers. During conveyance, homes may sit vacant for months and can deteriorate, contributing to neighborhood blight.
Senate Report 114-243 included a provision for GAO to review FHA's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. This report discusses (1) timelines for FHA property conveyances in 2010-2017 and whether servicers and FHA met time requirements, and (2) changes FHA has made to the conveyance process in recent years and any ongoing process challenges. GAO analyzed FHA data on properties conveyed in 2010-2017, reviewed FHA's policies and procedures, and interviewed 20 randomly selected mortgage servicers accounting for more than one-third of active FHA mortgages."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FHA (1) enhance the content and communication of policies and procedures on conveyance condition, (2) provide written direction on alternatives to reconveyance, and (3) develop a plan to assess a pilot program. FHA agreed with the second and third recommendations and did not agree or disagree with the first."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-517?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Housing Administration
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Administration's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. The report (GAO-19-517) is titled "Federal Housing Administration: Improved Procedures and Assessment Could Increase Efficiency of Foreclosed Property Conveyances".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. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Administration's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. The report (GAO-19-517) is titled "Federal Housing Administration: Improved Procedures and Assessment Could Increase Efficiency of Foreclosed Property Conveyances". 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 member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, on June 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From July 2010 through December 2017, the process for conveying foreclosed properties to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) took a median of 70 days. The conveyance process--which GAO measured from a mortgage servicer's obtaining title to and possession of the property to FHA's marketing of the property--involves servicers making repairs, transferring ownership, and filing a mortgage insurance claim, and FHA inspecting the property. FHA attributes the length of time to complete the process partly to foreclosure processing delays that left properties vulnerable to damage and vandalism, which can increase the time servicers need to bring properties into conveyance condition. Property damage also may increase the likelihood that FHA will reconvey a property (transfer it to the servicer) for not complying with condition standards, further extending the conveyance process. For about 55 percent of properties conveyed in July 2010-December 2017, servicers exceeded the required time to obtain title and possession of a foreclosed property and convey it to FHA. For 2017 alone, the corresponding figure was 72 percent. As a result, servicers were not eligible to be reimbursed for all repairs and interest expenses for those properties when filing insurance claims with FHA.
In recent years, FHA changed aspects of its conveyance process to help address some of the execution challenges the agency and servicers have faced. For example, in 2016, FHA enhanced its data system for conveyed properties to reduce manual administrative processing. FHA also began a pilot program in 2017 to decrease the number of properties FHA reconveys by inspecting properties before conveyance. However, GAO found shortcomings in FHA policies, procedures, and assessment efforts that are inconsistent with federal evaluation criteria and internal control standards, as follows:
* FHA's policies and procedures lack detail that could help servicers and contractors determine if a property is in compliance, and the agency has not examined alternative methods of communicating this information. Fifteen of the 20 servicers GAO interviewed said existing policies, procedures, and communications often were not clear or specific enough to address property conditions or repair decisions they encountered. FHA also relies on brief written policies to explain standards and makes limited or no use of other methods, such as photographs or industry-wide calls.
* FHA has not provided written direction on when to use alternatives to reconveyance--such as agreements under which servicers make repairs or repay FHA for any repair costs after conveyance--for properties not meeting condition standards. In the absence of such direction, FHA may not be addressing these properties in the most consistent or effective manner.
* FHA has not developed a plan to assess the outcome of its inspection pilot. Without rigorous assessment, FHA risks making decisions about the future of the pilot based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
Addressing these shortcomings could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FHA's property conveyance process."
Why GAO Did This Study: "FHA insures hundreds of thousands of single-family home mortgages annually. When an FHA borrower defaults, the mortgage servicer in many cases forecloses, obtains title to the property, and conveys ownership to FHA. FHA inspects the property, acquires it if it complies with condition standards and title requirements, and lists the property for sale. FHA may reconvey noncompliant properties to servicers. During conveyance, homes may sit vacant for months and can deteriorate, contributing to neighborhood blight.
Senate Report 114-243 included a provision for GAO to review FHA's effectiveness and efficiency in reaching determinations of conveyable condition. This report discusses (1) timelines for FHA property conveyances in 2010-2017 and whether servicers and FHA met time requirements, and (2) changes FHA has made to the conveyance process in recent years and any ongoing process challenges. GAO analyzed FHA data on properties conveyed in 2010-2017, reviewed FHA's policies and procedures, and interviewed 20 randomly selected mortgage servicers accounting for more than one-third of active FHA mortgages."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FHA (1) enhance the content and communication of policies and procedures on conveyance condition, (2) provide written direction on alternatives to reconveyance, and (3) develop a plan to assess a pilot program. FHA agreed with the second and third recommendations and did not agree or disagree with the first."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-517?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Foster Care
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on supervised independent living arrangements and services for older youth. The report (GAO-19-411) is titled "Foster Care: States with Approval to Extend Care Provide Independent Living Options for Youth up to Age 21".The report was sent to Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Indiana, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, on May 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The 26 states that have approval ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on supervised independent living arrangements and services for older youth. The report (GAO-19-411) is titled "Foster Care: States with Approval to Extend Care Provide Independent Living Options for Youth up to Age 21". The report was sent to Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Indiana, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, on May 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The 26 states that have approvalto receive federal funding to support their extended foster care programs for youth ages 18 up to 21 reported providing a range of supervised independent living arrangements. These arrangements include transitional living programs, private residences, and other settings (see figure). Officials we spoke with in five selected states said transitional living programs typically involve private child welfare agencies that lease apartments or facilities for youth, either at a single site or scattered across a geographic area, and offer on-site case management and supports to help youth build independent living skills. For private residences, youth may choose where to live, such as a private or shared apartment. In these cases, youth are typically responsible for their own lease, and may receive minimal supervision compared to youth in transitional living programs. For other settings, states reported options such as college dorms and residential employment training programs. Nineteen states also reported allowing youth under 18 to live in supervised independent living settings in certain instances, such as when they are pregnant, parents, or attending college, although such placements are generally not eligible for federal funding.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-411?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Factors that most states reported considering when placing youth in supervised independent living arrangements include the youth's life skills--for example, their ability to budget finances and schedule medical appointments--as well as their education and employment status. Officials in selected states also said they consider the availability of housing, which may be limited in certain localities due to a lack of affordable housing options or other factors, and the options available to youth with complex needs, such as those who are pregnant and parents.
Officials in four selected states said they help prepare youth in extended foster care to live independently by providing targeted trainings and other supports, such as financial literacy training. In all five selected states, youth can also learn independent living skills through services offered more broadly to all older youth in foster care, officials said, including assistance with housing, education, employment, and daily living skills, such as grocery shopping and budgeting."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Youth who leave the foster care system at age 18 are often ill-prepared to live on their own and may face challenges as they transition to adulthood, such as difficulties finding stable housing. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 allowed states to receive federal reimbursement through title IV-E of the Social Security Act for a portion of the cost of extending care to certain eligible youth up to age 21. The Act also allows youth ages 18 up to 21 to live in a supervised setting in which the individual is living independently. One such setting may be an apartment, with monthly check-ins with a case worker (referred to as supervised independent living arrangements).
GAO was asked to review supervised independent living arrangements and services for older youth. Among other things, this report examines (1) the types of supervised independent living arrangements available; (2) factors states reported considering when placing youth in these living arrangements; and (3) how selected states prepare youth to live independently.
GAO surveyed state child welfare agencies in the 26 states approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive federal funding to support their extended foster care programs; interviewed state and local child welfare officials and stakeholders in five states selected for factors such as variation in child welfare administration systems; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; and interviewed HHS officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-411?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Land, Water Conservation Fund
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The report (GAO-19-346) is titled "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Variety of Programs Supported, but Improvements in Data Collection Needed at BLM".The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on May 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, Congress appropriated nearly $1.9 billion from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The report (GAO-19-346) is titled "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Variety of Programs Supported, but Improvements in Data Collection Needed at BLM". The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on May 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, Congress appropriated nearly $1.9 billion from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).About half supported federal land acquisition across four agencies--Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (Park Service) in the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture--and half supported five other programs. These five programs provided states or local governments with funds for a variety of conservation and recreation purposes, such as conserving private forests or battlefields.
BLM, FWS, the Park Service, and the Forest Service use similar processes to select federal land acquisition projects involving local land units (such as national parks), regional offices, and headquarters. In general, land units identify projects and send them to regional offices for review before headquarters' offices assess the projects. Conservation organizations can also play a role in assisting federal agencies to acquire lands by identifying willing sellers, among other things.
In fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the four land agencies used LWCF appropriations to acquire over 850,000 acres. Most of these lands were acquired within the boundaries of their land units, according to agency officials. The agencies acquired land for various reasons, such as to protect wildlife habitat or improve recreational access. All four agencies acquired a little more than half of the land on a fee simple basis, which means all rights to the land were obtained; for the remaining land, the agencies acquired less than full ownership of all of the land rights. In addition, these agencies primarily acquired land by purchasing land from a landowner or receiving land donated by a landowner.
GAO found two limitations with BLM's data on land acquisitions.
* BLM does not maintain centralized data on the acquisition methods or land interests for the lands it obtains because such information was not considered necessary when BLM's data system was developed. BLM officials said they are considering including this information in changes to its data system, but they have yet to finalize plans for these changes.
* Some information entered in BLM's data system was not properly coded. Therefore, BLM could not identify all lands acquired with LWCF funds.
In contrast, FWS, the Park Service, and the Forest Service maintain centralized data on acquisition method and interests acquired, which officials from these agencies said were key data elements for maintaining an inventory of the lands they manage and to respond to information requests from Congress. Federal internal control standards call for agencies to obtain relevant data from reliable internal sources. Maintaining centralized data on land acquisition methods and interests acquired would help BLM maintain a more complete inventory of its lands, respond more quickly to information requests from Congress, and provide additional information to manage its lands. In addition, without more specific guidance to ensure that relevant data on LWCF land acquisitions are entered in its data system, BLM will not be able to use its system to identify all of the lands acquired using LWCF funds to track program outcomes and inform management decisions."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The LWCF is a U.S. Treasury fund that is used for land conservation and recreational purposes, through land acquisition and other means. The LWCF is authorized to accrue a minimum of $900 million annually, primarily from oil and gas leasing fees. Congress appropriates money from the fund for various programs. Four federal land management agencies--BLM, FWS, the Park Service, and the Forest Service--are responsible for implementing these programs.
GAO was asked to review the LWCF. This report examines (1) LWCF appropriations for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 and the programs supported by these funds; (2) the process for selecting federal land acquisition projects to fund using the LWCF; and (3) the federal lands that were acquired using LWCF funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2017, reasons for acquiring lands, and acquisition methods. GAO reviewed agency guidance; analyzed agency data, including appropriations data, for the most recent data available; and interviewed agency officials at the headquarters, regional, and land unit levels based on geographic diversity and other factors, along with officials at conservation groups identified by federal agencies."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that BLM collect centralized data on the acquisition method and interest acquired for the lands it obtains using the LWCF and that the agency develop more specific guidance to ensure that land acquisition data are entered properly in its data system. Interior concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-346?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on NASA Commercial Crew Program
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the extent to which the Commercial Crew Program and its contractors have made progress towards certification. The report (GAO-19-504) is titled "NASA Commercial Crew Program: Schedule Uncertainty Persists for Start of Operational Missions to the International Space Station".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the extent to which the Commercial Crew Program and its contractors have made progress towards certification. The report (GAO-19-504) is titled "NASA Commercial Crew Program: Schedule Uncertainty Persists for Start of Operational Missions to the International Space Station". 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 June 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Both of the Commercial Crew Program's contractors, Boeing and SpaceX, have made progress on their crew transportation systems. However, neither is ready to begin carrying astronauts into space as both continue to experience delays to certification. Certification is a process that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will use to ensure that each contractor's spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground support systems meet its requirements for human spaceflight before any operational missions to the International Space Station (ISS) can occur. Factors contributing to schedule uncertainty include:
Fluctuating schedules. As the contractors continue to build and test hardware--including SpaceX's March 2019 uncrewed test flight-- their schedules for certification change frequently. As of May 2019, both contractors had delayed certification nine times, equating to more than 2 years from their original contracts (see figure). This includes several delays since GAO last reported in July 2018.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-504?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Program Workload. NASA's ability to process certification data packages for its two contractors continues to create uncertainty about the timing of certification. The program has made progress conducting these reviews but much work remains. In addition, the program allowed both contractors to delay submitting evidence that they have met some requirements. This deferral has increased the amount of work remaining for the program prior to certification.
In February 2019, NASA acknowledged that delays to certification could continue, and announced plans to extend U.S. access to the ISS through September 2020 by purchasing seats on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. However, this arrangement does not fully address GAO's July 2018 recommendation to develop a contingency plan for ensuring access to the ISS until a Commercial Crew Program contractor is certified. NASA concurred with the recommendation but has not yet implemented it. Continued NASA attention on this issue is needed given the uncertainty associated with the final certification dates."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2014, NASA awarded two firm-fixed-price contracts to Boeing and SpaceX, worth a combined total of up to $6.8 billion, to develop crew transportation systems and conduct initial missions to the ISS. In July 2018, GAO found that both contractors continued to delay their certification dates and that further delays were likely. NASA must certify the contractors' crew transportation systems before the contractors can begin operational missions to the ISS. The contractors were originally required to provide NASA all the evidence it needed to certify that their systems met its requirements in 2017.
The House Committee on Appropriations included a provision in its 2017 report for GAO to continue to review NASA's human space exploration programs. This is the latest in a series of reports addressing the mandate. This report examines the extent to which the Commercial Crew Program and its contractors have made progress towards certification.
To do this work, GAO analyzed contracts, schedules, and other documentation and spoke with officials from the Commercial Crew Program, Boeing, and SpaceX."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO continues to believe that NASA should develop a contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted access to the ISS if delays persist beyond September 2020. NASA generally agreed with GAO's findings."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-504?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on NASA Human Space Exploration
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on NASA's human space exploration programs. The report (GAO-19-377) is titled "NASA Human Space Exploration: Persistent Delays and Cost Growth Reinforce Concerns over Management of Programs".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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on NASA's human space exploration programs. The report (GAO-19-377) is titled "NASA Human Space Exploration: Persistent Delays and Cost Growth Reinforce Concerns over Management of Programs". 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 Appropriationssubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, on June 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Due to continued production and testing challenges, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) three related human spaceflight programs have encountered additional launch delays and cost growth. In November 2018, within one year of announcing an up to 19-month delay for the three programs--the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle, the Orion spacecraft, and supporting ground systems--NASA senior leaders acknowledged the revised date of June 2020 is unlikely. Any issues uncovered during planned integration and testing may push the launch date as late as June 2021. Moreover, while NASA acknowledges about $1 billion in cost growth for the SLS program, it is understated. This is because NASA shifted some planned SLS scope to future missions but did not reduce the program's cost baseline accordingly. When GAO reduced the baseline to account for the reduced scope, the cost growth is about $1.8 billion.
In addition, NASA's updated cost estimate for the Orion program reflects 5.6 percent cost growth. The estimate is not complete, however, as it assumes a launch date that is 7 months earlier than Orion's baseline launch date. If the program does not meet the earlier launch date, costs will increase further. Updating baselines to reflect current mission scope and providing complete cost estimates would provide NASA management and Congress with a more transparent assessment of where NASA is having difficulty controlling costs.
NASA paid over $200 million in award fees from 2014-2018 related to contractor performance on the SLS stages and Orion spacecraft contracts. But the programs continue to fall behind schedule and overrun costs. Ongoing contract renegotiations with Boeing for the SLS and Lockheed Martin for the Orion program provide NASA an opportunity to reevaluate its strategy to incentivize contractors to obtain better outcomes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NASA is undertaking a trio of closely related programs to continue human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. All three programs (SLS, Orion, and supporting ground systems) are working toward a launch readiness date of June 2020 for the first mission.
The House Committee on Appropriations included a provision in its 2017 report for GAO to continue to review NASA's human space exploration programs. This is the latest in a series of reports addressing the mandate. This report assesses (1) how NASA's human space exploration programs are performing relative to cost and schedule commitments, and (2) the extent to which NASA's use of contract award fees is achieving desired program outcomes. To do this work, GAO examined program cost and schedule reports and contractor data, and interviewed officials. This report does not assess the effect, if any, of the government shutdown that ended in January 2019."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to NASA, including that the SLS program should calculate cost growth based on costs that are currently included in the first mission and the Orion program should update its cost estimate to reflect the schedule agreed to in its baseline. In addition, the SLS and Orion programs should reevaluate their strategy for incentivizing contractors. NASA concurred with three recommendations, and partially concurred with the recommendation related to the Orion program's cost estimate. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-377?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on NASA Human Space Exploration
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on NASA's human space exploration programs. The report (GAO-19-377) is titled "NASA Human Space Exploration: Persistent Delays and Cost Growth Reinforce Concerns over Management of Programs".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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on NASA's human space exploration programs. The report (GAO-19-377) is titled "NASA Human Space Exploration: Persistent Delays and Cost Growth Reinforce Concerns over Management of Programs". 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 Appropriationssubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, on June 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Due to continued production and testing challenges, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) three related human spaceflight programs have encountered additional launch delays and cost growth. In November 2018, within one year of announcing an up to 19-month delay for the three programs--the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle, the Orion spacecraft, and supporting ground systems--NASA senior leaders acknowledged the revised date of June 2020 is unlikely. Any issues uncovered during planned integration and testing may push the launch date as late as June 2021. Moreover, while NASA acknowledges about $1 billion in cost growth for the SLS program, it is understated. This is because NASA shifted some planned SLS scope to future missions but did not reduce the program's cost baseline accordingly. When GAO reduced the baseline to account for the reduced scope, the cost growth is about $1.8 billion.
In addition, NASA's updated cost estimate for the Orion program reflects 5.6 percent cost growth. The estimate is not complete, however, as it assumes a launch date that is 7 months earlier than Orion's baseline launch date. If the program does not meet the earlier launch date, costs will increase further. Updating baselines to reflect current mission scope and providing complete cost estimates would provide NASA management and Congress with a more transparent assessment of where NASA is having difficulty controlling costs.
NASA paid over $200 million in award fees from 2014-2018 related to contractor performance on the SLS stages and Orion spacecraft contracts. But the programs continue to fall behind schedule and overrun costs. Ongoing contract renegotiations with Boeing for the SLS and Lockheed Martin for the Orion program provide NASA an opportunity to reevaluate its strategy to incentivize contractors to obtain better outcomes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NASA is undertaking a trio of closely related programs to continue human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. All three programs (SLS, Orion, and supporting ground systems) are working toward a launch readiness date of June 2020 for the first mission.
The House Committee on Appropriations included a provision in its 2017 report for GAO to continue to review NASA's human space exploration programs. This is the latest in a series of reports addressing the mandate. This report assesses (1) how NASA's human space exploration programs are performing relative to cost and schedule commitments, and (2) the extent to which NASA's use of contract award fees is achieving desired program outcomes. To do this work, GAO examined program cost and schedule reports and contractor data, and interviewed officials. This report does not assess the effect, if any, of the government shutdown that ended in January 2019."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations to NASA, including that the SLS program should calculate cost growth based on costs that are currently included in the first mission and the Orion program should update its cost estimate to reflect the schedule agreed to in its baseline. In addition, the SLS and Orion programs should reevaluate their strategy for incentivizing contractors. NASA concurred with three recommendations, and partially concurred with the recommendation related to the Orion program's cost estimate. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-377?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Veterans Health Administration
WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Veterans Health Administration's oversight of Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The report (GAO-19-462) is titled "Veterans Health Administration: Regional Networks Need Improved Oversight and Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities".The report was sent to Rep. Julia Brownley, D-California, chair, Rep. Neal Dunn, R-Florida, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Health, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, Rep. Ann Kuster, D-New Hampshire, and Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio,on June 19. Here ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 21 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Veterans Health Administration's oversight of Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The report (GAO-19-462) is titled "Veterans Health Administration: Regional Networks Need Improved Oversight and Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities". The report was sent to Rep. Julia Brownley, D-California, chair, Rep. Neal Dunn, R-Florida, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Health, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, Rep. Ann Kuster, D-New Hampshire, and Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio,on June 19. Hereare excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) oversight of its regional health care networks is limited. Within VHA, these networks--known as Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN)--manage the day-to-day functions of medical centers and also provide administrative and clinical oversight of medical centers. VHA's approach for overseeing VISNs does not include an assessment of each VISN as a whole. Instead, to assess VISN operations, VHA primarily relies on performance assessments of individual VISN directors, which are based in part on medical center performance data. VHA officials acknowledged that a VISN director's individual performance is not always indicative of the VISN's performance as a whole. VHA supplements these assessments with periodic meetings with VISN leadership, including quarterly reviews on specific topics, such as patient quality assurance metrics and best practices. However, GAO found that these quarterly reviews do not typically include discussion of VISN-level performance measures, or how VISNs manage and oversee medical centers. By establishing a process for assessing the overall performance of VISNs in managing and overseeing medical centers, VHA would be better able to determine if a VISN's performance is positive, if it is functioning poorly, or if it requires remediation.
VHA also lacks a comprehensive policy to define VISN roles and responsibilities. VHA and VISN officials told GAO they have several documents they believe help VISNs understand these roles and responsibilities. However, these documents either focus on specific policies and programs, or are tied to individuals. The lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities at the VISN level makes it difficult for VHA to develop an effective oversight process that ensures adequate monitoring of VISN activities.
VHA primarily oversees VISN staffing by using standardized staffing levels and positions, but does not ensure VISNs adhere to them. VHA has a standardized VISN organizational chart, which includes recommended staffing levels for each of the 18 VISNs--63 to 66 full-time-equivalent staff--and 28 key positions, including a chief medical officer and mental health lead, to be in place at each VISN. VHA officials told GAO they expect VISNs to adhere to the standardized chart, and that they conducted a one-time review that included checking that VISNs' total full-time equivalents were within the allotted allowance. However, VHA's review did not ensure that VISN organizational charts always included the 28 key positions laid out on the standardized chart. GAO found one to five key positions were not listed on the organizational charts of more than a third of VISNs, among those with organizational charts that VHA had reviewed and approved. For example, one VISN was missing both the primary care and geriatrics positions on its organizational chart. VISN officials provided various reasons for the positions not being listed on the organizational charts, including that these responsibilities were being performed as a collateral duty for VISN or medical center staff. Without effective oversight, VHA leadership cannot provide reasonable assurance that VISNs are appropriately staffed, which may hinder implementation of programs, and ultimately, the care veterans receive."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VHA operates one of the nation's largest health care systems with 18 regional networks--VISNs--that manage and oversee 172 medical centers within defined geographic areas. VHA expects to provide care to more than 7 million veterans in fiscal year 2019, and demand for its services is expected to grow over time.
GAO was asked to conduct a review of VISNs, including VHA's oversight of VISNs. This report examines (1) the extent to which VHA oversees VISNs' management and oversight of medical centers and (2) how VHA oversees VISN staffing.
GAO reviewed VHA policies, guidance, and staffing data regarding VISNs. GAO also interviewed officials from VHA, all 18 VISNs, and four medical centers selected for variation in geography, urban or rural location, and complexity."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that VHA (1) develop a process to assess the overall performance of VISNs in managing and overseeing medical centers, (2) establish a comprehensive policy that clearly defines VISN roles and responsibilities for managing and overseeing medical centers and (3) establish a process to routinely oversee VISN staffing. VHA concurred with the first and third recommendations, and concurred in principle with the second."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-462?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on K-12 Education
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of districts that reported all zeros or that left fields blank pertaining to restraint and seclusion. The report (GAO-19-551R) is titled "K-12 Education: Education Should Take Immediate Action to Address Inaccuracies in Federal Restraint and Seclusion Data".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of districts that reported all zeros or that left fields blank pertaining to restraint and seclusion. The report (GAO-19-551R) is titled "K-12 Education: Education Should Take Immediate Action to Address Inaccuracies in Federal Restraint and Seclusion Data". 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 and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, on June 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAOs' review found that data the Department of Education (Education) uses in its enforcement of civil rights laws does not accurately or completely reflect all incidents of restraint and seclusion of public school students. Education has stated that restraint and seclusion should only be used when a child's behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others. GAO's review of the most recent Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), school year 2015-16, found that 70 percent of the more than 17,000 school districts in the U.S. reported zero incidents of restraint and zero incidents of seclusion. However, GAO's analysis and documents from Education showed substantial evidence that nine of the 30 largest districts (those with more than 100,000 students) inaccurately reported zeros when they actually had incidents or did not have the data. Moreover, Education officials have said very large districts are likely to have incidents of restraint and seclusion. For example, Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia, which has about 186,000 students, reported zero incidents in school year 2015-16 but recently acknowledged that it had over 1,600 incidents of restraint or seclusion in school year 2017-18.
Documents from Education also showed that several of the very largest school districts reporting zero incidents were instead not collecting data on restraint and seclusion for the CRDC at all, contrary to Education's guidance and policy. While Education requires districts to provide plans for collecting data that are missing or incomplete, GAO found that several of the largest districts reporting zero either did not provide plans or provided incomplete plans. These districts were able to bypass the CRDC system requirement to submit plans because they reported zero incidents instead of leaving the fields blank to indicate the data were missing. Education created a tip sheet to instruct districts on when to report zeros and how to report that data are not available, but the tip sheet is difficult to find on the CRDC website and not available on the screen where districts submit data. Further, Education has not corrected the data for the nine largest districts that inaccurately reported zero restraints and seclusions.
While it is difficult to know the full extent of underreporting, the problems that GAO found with the largest districts reporting zero incidents when in fact the data were missing raise questions as to whether other school districts correctly reported zero incidents of restraint and seclusion. GAO found documents from Education that indicated other, smaller districts also might have misreported zeroes.
Education describes its civil rights data as a key part of its enforcement strategy to protect students from discrimination and ensure equal access to education. Without adequate systems in place to ensure the accurate, complete reporting of restraint and seclusion data, districts may continue to erroneously report zero incidents and Education may be hindered in its enforcement of civil rights laws."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Every 2 years, Education collects data, including data on restraint and seclusion, from almost all public school districts. Education uses this data in its enforcement of federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. Education has been collecting data on restraint and seclusion since school year 2009-10 and is currently collecting data for school year 2017-18.
GAO has work underway on reporting of restraint and seclusion data in response to a provision in the explanatory statement from the House Committee on Appropriations accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. As part of data reliability testing for that work, GAO analyzed the number of districts that reported all zeros or that left fields blank pertaining to restraint and seclusion. The data reliability testing raised questions about the completeness and accuracy of the CRDC restraint and seclusion data. GAO subsequently reviewed the explanations required by Education of the largest districts if they report zero incidents of restraint and seclusion, and documentation on Education's investigations that found underreporting. This report focuses on the issues GAO has identified to date regarding potentially incomplete data."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that Education (1) immediately remind and clarify for school districts when to report zeros for incidents of restraint and seclusion and when to leave cells blank, (2) follow up with districts reporting zero incidents in the 2017-18 collection, (3) ensure plans for providing data in the future are submitted and complete, and (4) prominently disclose the potential problems with the previous CRDC restraint and seclusion data . Education agreed with the first three recommendations and disagreed with the fourth, which we have revised above."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-551R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Nuclear Weapons
WASHINGTON, June 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's high explosive capabilities specific to nuclear weapons. The report (GAO-19-449) is titled "Nuclear Weapons: Additional Actions Could Help Improve Management of Activities Involving Explosive Materials".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, June 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's high explosive capabilities specific to nuclear weapons. The report (GAO-19-449) is titled "Nuclear Weapons: Additional Actions Could Help Improve Management of Activities Involving Explosive Materials". 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, chairman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on June 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Five National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contractor-operated sites conduct activities to design and produce explosive materials. There are about 100 different nuclear weapon components that contain explosive materials (see figure). Each site assumes primary responsibility for certain activities, but most activities require collaboration by multiple sites, according to NNSA officials and contractor representatives. In 2018, NNSA began adopting a centralized approach to managing these activities and coordinating them across its sites.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-449?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Notes: Symbols do not show actual designs. Detonators enable components to function. Main charges compress the nuclear core, or pit, creating a nuclear reaction. Neutron generators facilitate the reaction, which can be enhanced by gas transfer systems that inject gases into the pit. Arming, fuzing, firing, and surety systems ensure that weapons will operate safely, securely, and reliably and only when authorized. Spin rocket motors perform an arming function in nuclear bombs.
NNSA officials and contractor representatives identified several challenges related to explosives activities, such as the agency's dwindling supply of explosive materials, aging and deteriorating infrastructure, and difficulty recruiting and training qualified staff. For example, only a single container of one specialized material remains. NNSA officials and contractor representatives indicated that the agency is taking some actions to address these challenges, such as working to replenish the supply of dwindling, highly specialized materials.
NNSA's strategic plan for explosives activities addresses some of the challenges agency officials and contractor representatives have identified, and NNSA followed several key leading practices in developing its strategic plan. However, some of the plan's elements have not been fully developed consistent with selected leading practices. For instance, the plan does not include a fully developed mission statement, and some performance goals are not quantifiable. NNSA officials stated that they are aware of the strategic plan's limitations and that they released it quickly to ensure that the explosives community could use it as soon as possible. NNSA officials said that they intend to revise the strategic plan in the next year or so. As NNSA revises its strategic plan, by including fully developed elements of an effective strategic plan, NNSA would help make the strategic plan more useful in measuring goal achievement and assessing accountability."
Why GAO Did This Study: "NNSA is responsible for the management and security of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. NNSA has ongoing and planned efforts to modernize nearly all of the weapons in the stockpile, which require new explosive components. The production of some key explosives ceased in the early 1990s, and much of the infrastructure supporting this work is aging, making it expensive and difficult to maintain.
The Senate Report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review NNSA's high explosive capabilities specific to nuclear weapons. This report examines (1) explosives activities that NNSA and its sites conduct and how NNSA manages them; (2) challenges NNSA officials and contractor representatives identified in conducting these activities and the extent to which NNSA has taken actions to address them; and (3) the extent to which NNSA's strategic plan for explosives activities describes further actions, if any, to address the challenges identified and follows leading practices for strategic planning. GAO reviewed NNSA documents related to explosives activities, including its strategic plan; compared the plan with leading practices; and interviewed NNSA officials and site representatives."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations, including that NNSA, as it revises its strategic plan for explosives activities, include fully developed elements of an effective strategic plan. NNSA agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-449?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Transitioning Servicemembers
WASHINGTON, June 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Military Employment Assistance Centers. The report (GAO-19-438R) is titled "Transitioning Servicemembers: Information on Military Employment Assistance Centers".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 June 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Military Employment Assistance Centers. The report (GAO-19-438R) is titled "Transitioning Servicemembers: Information on Military Employment Assistance Centers". 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 June 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "About 300 employment assistance centers have been established at military installations worldwide. These centers operate the mandatory Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which provides counseling, employment assistance, and information on veterans' benefits to help separating servicemembers transition to civilian life. Other employment and family support services are also available at the centers. Complete and reliable data on the use of all of the support services administered by the centers is not available, but efforts are underway to collect such data.
Regarding TAP, DOD reported that 138,256 (90 percent) of eligible separating active duty servicemembers; 12,069 (57 percent) of National Guard members; and 13,630 (64 percent) of eligible Reserve service members participated in TAP in fiscal year 2018. Though not required, according to DOD officials, the agency collected data for fiscal year 2017 from each military branch of service on the employment readiness and other family support services provided at the centers. However, DOD officials stated that the centers were reporting the information differently. As a result, DOD is planning to revise the reporting requirements and method of data collection to gather more accurate information.
The Coast Guard also collects TAP participation data, but GAO's recent prior work found that the data were unreliable and the agency has not yet implemented GAO's recommendation to establish policies and procedures to improve the reliability and completeness of the data. Coast Guard officials reported that they do not collect data on the other employment services provided at its centers beyond TAP, and the agency is not required to do so.
DOD and the Coast Guard use several databases and documents to record servicemembers' training that may be applicable to future civilian employment. For example, the Verification of Military Experience and Training (VMET) is a key document that compiles information from the military branches' databases and lists the training servicemembers received and their military occupations in civilian terms. Agency officials said TAP guidance helps ensure that servicemembers have access to the VMET and similar documents, which the servicemember may then share with civilian entities, such as potential employers and state employment agencies. According to DOD officials, as part of completing TAP, servicemembers must confirm that they either have hard copies of their documents or understand how to access them online. According to these officials, DOD does not share servicemembers' information directly with external entities, unless requested by a servicemember."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Approximately 200,000 servicemembers transition from military service to civilian life each year, according to DOD. Some veterans may experience difficulty finding civilian employment after leaving the service. For example, a veteran may be unfamiliar with effective job search strategies, and may not know how their military experience and training could apply to jobs in the civilian workforce. Federal law requires DOD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish permanent employment assistance centers at appropriate military and Coast Guard installations. In addition, under the law, DOD and DHS are required to take other steps that may help servicemembers apply their skills and experience to civilian employment. Specifically, the agencies must provide servicemembers a certification or verification of any job skills and experience acquired while on active duty that may be applicable to civilian employment and must develop procedures for sharing certain information with civilian entities, such as potential employers and state employment agencies.
The conference report accompanying the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to review the employment assistance programs authorized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1143. This report describes (1) the number and locations of employment assistance centers currently in operation, and what is known about how frequently servicemembers use them, and (2) how DOD and the Coast Guard record servicemembers' training that may be applicable to future civilian employment, and what procedures are in place to share such information with civilian entities.
GAO reviewed a list of the military installations with employment assistance centers from DOD and DHS as well as agency documents on the use of employment services at the centers, and the various databases and documents used to record the training servicemembers received. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency policies for TAP. GAO also reviewed DOD data on TAP participation for fiscal 2018. Lastly, GAO interviewed officials from the Coast Guard, DHS, DOD, and the Department of Labor."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-438R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Data Protection
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' actions to ensure the effectiveness of agencies' remote identity proofing processes. The report (GAO-19-288) is titled "Data Protection: Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen Online Identity Verification Processes".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. Elijah E. Cummings, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' actions to ensure the effectiveness of agencies' remote identity proofing processes. The report (GAO-19-288) is titled "Data Protection: Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen Online Identity Verification Processes". 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. Elijah E. Cummings,D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on May 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Remote identity proofing is the process federal agencies and other entities use to verify that the individuals who apply online for benefits and services are who they claim to be. To perform remote identity proofing, agencies that GAO reviewed rely on consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to conduct a procedure known as knowledge-based verification. This type of verification involves asking applicants seeking federal benefits or services personal questions derived from information found in their credit files, with the assumption that only the true owner of the identity would know the answers. If the applicant responds correctly, their identity is considered to be verified. For example, the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses this technique to verify the identities of individuals seeking access to the "My Social Security" service, which allows them to check the status of benefit applications, request a replacement Social Security or Medicare card, and request other services.
However, data stolen in recent breaches, such as the 2017 Equifax breach, could be used fraudulently to respond to knowledge-based verification questions. The risk that an attacker could obtain and use an individual's personal information to answer knowledge-based verification questions and impersonate that individual led the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to issue guidance in 2017 that effectively prohibits agencies from using knowledge-based verification for sensitive applications. Alternative methods are available that provide stronger security, as shown in Figure 1. However, these methods may have limitations in cost, convenience, and technological maturity, and they may not be viable for all segments of the public.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-288?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Two of the six agencies that GAO reviewed have eliminated knowledge-based verification. Specifically, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently developed and began using alternative methods for remote identity proofing for their Login.gov and Get Transcript services that do not rely on knowledge-based verification. One agency--the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)--has implemented alternative methods for part of its identity proofing process but still relies on knowledge-based verification for some individuals. SSA and the United States Postal Service (USPS) intend to reduce or eliminate their use of knowledge-based verification sometime in the future but do not yet have specific plans for doing so. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has no plans to reduce or eliminate knowledge-based verification for remote identity proofing.
Several officials cited reasons for not adopting alternative methods, including high costs and implementation challenges for certain segments of the public. For example, mobile device verification may not always be viable because not all applicants possess mobile devices that can be used to verify their identities. Nevertheless, until these agencies take steps to eliminate their use of knowledge-based verification, the individuals they serve will remain at increased risk of identity fraud.
NIST has issued guidance to agencies related to identity proofing and OMB has drafted identity management guidance, but their guidance is not sufficient to ensure agencies are adopting such methods. Sound practices in information technology (IT) management state that organizations should provide clear direction on how to implement IT objectives. However, NIST's guidance does not provide direction to agencies on how to successfully implement alternative identity-proofing methods with currently available technologies for all segments of the public. For example, the guidance does not discuss the advantages and limitations of currently available technologies or make recommendations to agencies on which technologies should be adopted. Further, most of the agencies that GAO reviewed reported that they were not able to implement the guidance because of limitations in available technologies for implementing alternative identify proofing methods. NIST officials stated that they believe their guidance is comprehensive, and at the time of our review they did not plan to issue supplemental implementation guidance to assist agencies.
The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 ( FISMA) requires that OMB oversee federal agencies' information security practices. Although OMB has the authority under this statute to issue guidance, OMB has not issued guidance requiring agencies to report on their progress in implementing NIST's identity proofing guidance. OMB staff plan to issue guidance on identity management at federal agencies, but their proposed guidance does not require agencies to report on their progress in implementing NIST guidance. Until NIST provides additional guidance to help agencies move away from knowledge-based verification methods and OMB requires agencies to report on their progress, federal agencies will likely continue to struggle to strengthen their identify proofing processes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Many federal agencies rely on CRAs, such as Equifax, to help conduct remote identity proofing. The 2017 breach of data at Equifax raised concerns about federal agencies' remote identity proofing processes.
GAO was asked to review federal agencies' remote identity proofing practices in light of the recent Equifax breach and the potential for fraud. The objectives of this review were to (1) describe federal practices for remote identity proofing and the risks associated with those practices, (2) assess federal agencies' actions to ensure the effectiveness of agencies' remote identity proofing processes, and (3) assess the sufficiency of federal identity proofing guidance.
To do so, GAO identified remote identity proofing practices used by six agencies (CMS, GSA, IRS, SSA, USPS, and VA) with major, public-facing web applications providing public access to benefits or services. GAO compared the agencies' practices to NIST's remote identity proofing guidance to assess their effectiveness, and compared NIST's and OMB's guidance to requirements in federal law and best practices in IT management to assess the sufficiency of the guidance."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making recommendations to six agencies to strengthen online identify verification processes:
* GAO recommends that CMS, SSA, USPS, and VA develop plans to strengthen their remote identity proofing processes by discontinuing knowledge-based verification.
* GAO recommends that NIST supplement its technical guidance with implementation guidance to assist agencies in adopting more secure remote identity proofing processes.
* GAO recommends that OMB issue guidance requiring federal agencies to report on their progress in adopting secure identity proofing practices.
Four agencies--Commerce (on behalf of NIST), SSA, USPS, and VA--agreed with GAO's recommendations. These agencies outlined the additional steps they plan to take to improve the security of their remote identity proofing processes. One agency, HHS (on behalf of CMS), disagreed with GAO's recommendation because it did not believe that the available alternatives to knowledge-based verification were feasible for the individuals it serves. However, a variety of alternative methods exist, and GAO continues to believe CMS should develop a plan for discontinuing the use of knowledge-based verification. OMB provided a technical comment, which GAO incorporated, but OMB did not provide any comments on GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-288?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Retirement
WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on potential improvements in federal retirement processing at the Office of Personnel Management. The report (GAO-19-217) is titled "Federal Retirement: OPM Actions Needed to Improve Application Processing Times".The report was sent to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on potential improvements in federal retirement processing at the Office of Personnel Management. The report (GAO-19-217) is titled "Federal Retirement: OPM Actions Needed to Improve Application Processing Times". The report was sent to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reformsubcommittee on Government Operations, on May 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the federal retirement program, identified three root causes for retirement processing delays:
1. the continuing reliance on paper-based applications and manual processing;
2. insufficient staffing capacity, particularly during peak workload season; and
3. incomplete applications.
OPM has taken various actions to address these root causes and thereby reduce delays.
Vision for modernizing retirement processing. OPM's strategic vision consists of five key initiatives for modernizing the application process, including developing an electronic application form and an electronic system to store retirement information. However, OPM was unable to provide estimated time frames or costs for the initiatives. OPM officials said that additional information technology (IT) modernization work is dependent on sufficient funding, among other factors. These factors are important but do not preclude OPM from establishing estimated cost ranges and time frames--practices consistent with industry best practices and IT project management principles.
Actions to increase staffing capacity. OPM's actions have included using overtime pay and hiring additional staff. However, OPM generally does not assess the effectiveness of these actions or whether they reduce delays. For example, OPM does not measure overtime productivity or correlate overtime data with application processing data. Federal internal control standards state that management should review its performance compared to its goals. OPM officials stated that they have limited resources for assessments. However, without assessments, OPM is less able to make informed decisions on how to best use staffing practices to improve processing times.
Actions to reduce missing information in applications. OPM provides assistance to agencies through guidance, training, communication through liaisons and email, and error reports. OPM's monthly error reports to agencies include information on the type of error found and the volume of applications with the same error, according to OPM. The four agencies GAO interviewed--Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and U.S. Postal Service (USPS)--reported that aspects of the error reports were not user-friendly. OPM stated that its assistance is intended to help agencies submit complete and accurate retirement packages for quicker processing. Federal internal control standards state that management should communicate quality information externally and periodically reevaluate its communication methods. OPM officials stated that the error report is intended to capture the overarching errors many agencies face and that revising the error report would not be cost-effective. However, the current format of the error report may limit its usefulness to agencies in improving their retirement applications."
Why GAO Did This Study: "According to OPM, it receives more than 100,000 retirement applications each fiscal year. Between 2014 to 2017, OPM did not meet its goal of processing most retirement applications within 60 days. GAO was asked to review potential improvements in federal retirement processing at OPM. This report (1) describes the root causes of retirement application processing delays, as determined by OPM; and (2) examines what strategies, if any, OPM has taken to address those root causes, and how OPM has evaluated the effectiveness of the strategies.
GAO reviewed OPM data and documents, and interviewed OPM officials. GAO also interviewed officials from DOD, HHS, NASA, and USPS about their experiences with processing retirement applications. GAO selected these agencies because they represent a variety of application error rates and relatively high application volume."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 6 recommendations. These recommendations include that OPM should develop a retirement services IT modernization plan for initial project phases; develop and implement policies for assessing staffing strategies intended to improve processing times; and determine if there are cost-effective ways to make the retirement application error report more user-friendly. OPM concurred with 1 recommendation and partially concurred with 5 recommendations. GAO continues to believe all aspects of the recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report. GAO also incorporated technical comments."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-217?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Army Corps of Engineers
WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Army Corps of Engineers prioritizes funding for Section 219 projects. The report (GAO-19-487) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219 Projects for Funding Could Be Strengthened".The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member 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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Army Corps of Engineers prioritizes funding for Section 219 projects. The report (GAO-19-487) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219 Projects for Funding Could Be Strengthened". The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member 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 June 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the most recent available data, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) spent approximately $81 million on 29 Section 219 projects to develop drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. For example, through the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin Section 219 project, the Corps assisted with improvements to a wastewater treatment plant. Of the 29 projects, the Corps spent over half of the funding during this period on four projects: (1) Calumet Region, Indiana; (2) Desoto County, Mississippi; (3) Jackson County, Mississippi; and (4) Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
The Corps generally follows its standard budget prioritization process--which involves districts, divisions, and headquarters ranking each project and headquarters making final funding decisions--to prioritize Section 219 funding. However, the Corps has not developed criteria to guide this process. GAO found the Corps varies in the factors it uses to rank Section 219 projects. For example, one district considers whether a project can be completed within the fiscal year, while another considers the level of congressional support and dollar value of the project. Headquarters officials said the agency views Section 219 projects as outside its core mission areas and therefore has not developed written criteria. Congressional direction has indicated that the Corps is to consider characteristics--such as projects with the greater economic impact--in prioritizing Section 219 project funding. While aware of this direction, Corps officials said they do not consider it when ranking projects. Federal standards for internal control states that agencies should use quality information to achieve their objectives. By establishing written criteria, the Corps would have greater assurance that its Section 219 project selections align with a clear set of priorities, such as those identified by recent congressional direction."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Under Section 219 of the 1992 Water Resources Development Act, as amended, Congress authorized the Corps to provide assistance for the design and construction of environmental infrastructure projects, known as Section 219 projects. Such projects include the development of water transmission lines. Congress typically provides a lump sum appropriation for the Corps' construction account, out of which Section 219 and other environmental infrastructure projects are funded.
GAO was asked to review projects carried out under the Section 219 program. This report examines (1) the number and type of Section 219 projects and expenditures from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, and (2) how the Corps prioritizes funding for Section 219 projects. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency guidance; analyzed agency data for fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the most recent time period for which data were available; and interviewed agency officials at headquarters, three divisions, and three districts-selected based on geographic distribution and the amount of Section 219 project expenditures."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Corps develop written criteria for ranking Section 219 projects for funding, taking into account a clear set of priorities, such as those identified by recent congressional direction. The agency concurred with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-487?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tobacco Taxes
WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the market shifts among smoking tobacco products. The report (GAO-19-467) is titled "Tobacco Taxes: Market Shifts toward Lower-Taxed Products Continue to Reduce Federal Revenue".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on June 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Large federal excise tax disparities among similar tobacco products after enactment of the Children's Health ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the market shifts among smoking tobacco products. The report (GAO-19-467) is titled "Tobacco Taxes: Market Shifts toward Lower-Taxed Products Continue to Reduce Federal Revenue". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on June 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Large federal excise tax disparities among similar tobacco products after enactment of the Children's HealthInsurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009 led to immediate market shifts (see figure). Specifically, CHIPRA created tax disparities between roll-your-own and pipe tobacco and between small and large cigars, creating opportunities for tax avoidance and leading manufacturers and consumers to shift to the lower-taxed products. Following the market shifts after CHIPRA, the lower-taxed products have sustained their dominant position in their respective markets.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-467?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Market shifts to avoid increased tobacco taxes following CHIPRA have continued to reduce federal revenue. GAO estimates that federal revenue losses due to market shifts from roll-your-own to pipe tobacco and from small to large cigars range from a total of about $2.5 to $3.9 billion from April 2009 through September 2018, depending on assumptions about how consumers would respond to a tax increase.
Federal revenue would likely increase if Congress were to equalize the tax rate for pipe tobacco with the rates currently in effect for roll-your-own tobacco and cigarettes. GAO estimates that federal revenue would increase by a total of approximately $1.3 billion from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2023 if the pipe tobacco tax rate were equalized with the higher rate for roll-your-own tobacco and cigarettes. While equalizing federal excise taxes on small and large cigars should raise revenue based on past experience, the specific revenue effect is unknown because data for conducting this analysis are not available. These data are not collected by the Department of the Treasury because such data are not needed to administer and collect large cigar taxes under the current tax structure."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2009, CHIPRA increased and equalized federal excise tax rates for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, and small cigars but did not equalize tax rates for pipe tobacco and large cigars--products that can be cigarette substitutes. GAO reported in 2012 and 2014 on the estimated federal revenue losses due to the market shifts from roll-your-own to pipe tobacco and from small to large cigars.
This report updates GAO's prior products by examining (1) the market shifts among smoking tobacco products since CHIPRA, (2) the estimated effects on federal revenue if the market shifts had not occurred, and (3) what is known about the revenue effects if Congress were to eliminate current tax disparities between smoking tobacco products. GAO analyzed data from the Department of the Treasury and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to identify sales trends for domestic and imported smoking tobacco products, to estimate the effect on tax collection if market substitutions had not occurred, and to model the effects of equalizing tax rates for smoking tobacco products."
What GAO Recommends: "In its 2012 report, GAO recommended Congress consider equalizing tax rates on roll-your-own and pipe tobacco and consider options for reducing tax avoidance due to tax differentials between small and large cigars. Treasury generally agreed with GAO's conclusions and observations. As of May 2019, Congress had not passed legislation to reduce or eliminate tax differentials between smoking tobacco products. Treasury also generally agreed with this report's findings."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-467?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on VA Real Property
WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Veterans Affairs incorporates veterans' changing needs and expectations into facility planning. The report (GAO-19-440) is titled "VA Real Property: Improvements in Facility Planning Needed to Ensure VA Meets Changes in Veterans' Needs and Expectations".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 June 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Veterans Affairs incorporates veterans' changing needs and expectations into facility planning. The report (GAO-19-440) is titled "VA Real Property: Improvements in Facility Planning Needed to Ensure VA Meets Changes in Veterans' Needs and Expectations". 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 June 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) analyzes demographic trends to assess veterans' future health-care needs, such as the need for more long-term care or women's health care services. VA does not, however, systematically collect data concerning whether demographic groups differ in their expectations for how they will receive care, such as whether some groups expect different levels of privacy. VA officials said they gauge expectations by surveying veterans and talking to veterans service organizations. GAO's review, however, found the amount of information VA collected through these methods is limited. Without robust data about veterans' expectations and assessing how changes would affect facilities' space needs, VA cannot readily anticipate and adapt to meet veterans' changing expectations--a goal in its FY 2018-2024 Strategic Plan .
In addition to identifying meeting veterans' changing needs and expectations as a national strategic goal, VA defined a national set of VA-delivered core medical services called "foundational health services" to, in part, meet veterans' expectations of consistent care offerings across VA medical centers (VAMC) and also to focus VA's resources on its highest priority services. However, based on GAO's survey of VAMCs and discussions with selected facility-planning officials, GAO found that VA did not clearly instruct VAMCs in how to apply VA's strategic goal or foundational health services to facility planning. Accordingly, more than three quarters of VAMC facility-planning officials responding to GAO's survey indicated additional instruction from VA for the strategic goal and foundational health services would be useful. Without providing clear instruction, VA increases its risk that its strategic goal and foundational health services are not meeting their objective to incorporate veterans' changing needs and expectations.
Most facility-planning officials had concerns with using estimated space needs derived from VA's Strategic Capital Investment Planning (SCIP) process, which converts estimated needs for veterans' health care into future space needs for the VAMCs. Specifically, the officials (1) did not understand how the SCIP process converts health care needs into physical space and (2) questioned how accurately the space estimates reflected the future health-care needs for local facilities. For example, 72 percent of facility-planning officials responding to GAO's survey reported that at least one of SCIP's 12 space category estimates was "generally inaccurate" at reflecting projected space needs for their facility. As a result, instead of relying on SCIP's space estimates as a starting point to incorporate veterans' changing needs into facility planning, VAMC facility planners told GAO that they may instead use locally identified health care needs and priorities to determine space needs. Without a process for VA to understand and address concerns about the SCIP process, VAMCs may spend time and resources on capital projects that do not necessarily meet veterans' future needs as VA intended. This approach may therefore impede VA's ability to respond to veterans needs as this population changes."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VA provides for care to over 9-million veterans in its health care system, including 172 VAMCs. As veterans' demographics shift, such as by age or gender, their needs for health care and their expectations for how they receive that care may also change. Along with the VA MISSION Act of 2018, which requires VA to assess its facilities for realignment and modernization, these changes could have implications for VA's capital-planning efforts.
GAO was asked to review how VA incorporates veterans' changing needs and expectations into facility planning. This report examines: (1) VA's efforts to assess trends in veterans' future needs and expectations; (2) VA's efforts to help VAMCs address these changes through facility planning; and (3) how VAMCs use VA's process for identifying facilities' future space needs.
GAO surveyed all VAMCs, visited nine VAMCs, reviewed VA's planning documents and data, and interviewed officials from VA and veterans service organizations. GAO's survey response rate was 99 percent.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends VA: (1) assess changes in veterans' expectations; (2) instruct facility planners on how to incorporate veterans' changing needs and expectations; (3) clarify foundational health services implementation; and (4) assess concerns with the SCIP process and make needed adjustments. VA agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-440?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Climate Resilience
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's progress in developing a means to account for potentially damaging weather in its facilities project designs. The report (GAO-19-453) is titled "Climate Resilience: DOD Needs to Assess Risk and Provide Guidance on Use of Climate Projections in Installation Master Plans and Facilities Designs".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, Veterans' Affairs, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's progress in developing a means to account for potentially damaging weather in its facilities project designs. The report (GAO-19-453) is titled "Climate Resilience: DOD Needs to Assess Risk and Provide Guidance on Use of Climate Projections in Installation Master Plans and Facilities Designs". 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, Veterans' Affairs,and Related Agencies, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, chairwoman, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Department of Defense (DOD) installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions. For example, DOD's 2018 preliminary assessment of extreme weather and climate effects at installations was based on the installations' reported past experiences with extreme weather rather than an analysis of future vulnerabilities based on climate projections. Fifteen of the 23 installations GAO visited or contacted had considered some extreme weather and climate change effects in their plans as required by DOD guidance, but 8 had not. For example, Fort Irwin, California, worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve stormwater drainage after intense flash flooding caused significant damage to base infrastructure. By contrast, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, did not include such considerations in its plans, although it is located in an area subject to tropical storms and where further sea level rise is anticipated.
GAO also found that most of the installations had not used climate projections, because they lack guidance on how to incorporate projections into their master plans. Not assessing risks or using climate projections in installation planning may expose DOD facilities to greater-than-anticipated damage or degradation as a result of extreme weather or climate-related effects.
Eleven of the 23 installations we reviewed had designed one or more individual facilities projects to increase the resilience of the facilities to extreme weather and climate change effects. However, project designs generally did not consider climate projections, according to installation officials. These officials told us that DOD lacks guidance on how to use climate projections that involve multiple future scenarios and different time periods. Until DOD updates its facilities design standards to require installations to consider climate projections in project designs, identify authoritative sources for them to use, and provide guidance on how to use projections, installation project designers may continue to exclude consideration of climate projections from facilities project designs, potentially making investments that are planned without consideration of climate-related risks."
Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD manages a global real-estate portfolio with an almost $1.2 trillion estimated replacement value. Since 2010, DOD has identified climate change as a threat to its operations and installations. In January 2019, DOD stated that the effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to the department's missions, operational plans, and installations. GAO was asked to assess DOD's progress in developing a means to account for potentially damaging weather in its facilities project designs.
GAO examined the extent to which DOD has taken steps to incorporate resilience to extreme weather and climate change effects into (1) selected installation master plans and related planning documents, and (2) selected individual installation facilities projects.
GAO reviewed DOD documents related to increasing climate resilience, conducting installation master planning, and designing facilities projects. GAO visited or contacted a non-generalizable sample of 23 installations that had been associated with one or more climate vulnerabilities."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making eight recommendations, including that the military departments work together to update master planning criteria to require an assessment of extreme weather and climate change risks and to incorporate DOD guidance on the use of climate projections into facilities design standards. GAO also recommends that DOD issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into installation master planning and facilities project designs. DOD concurred with all eight of GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-453?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Commercial Aviation
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on airline information technology outages. The report (GAO-19-514) is titled "Commercial Aviation: Information on Airline IT Outages".The report was sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Transportation (DOT) and, within it, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have limited roles overseeing or addressing the effects of outages ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on airline information technology outages. The report (GAO-19-514) is titled "Commercial Aviation: Information on Airline IT Outages". The report was sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Transportation (DOT) and, within it, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have limited roles overseeing or addressing the effects of outagesfrom information technology (IT) systems that airlines rely on to schedule and transport passengers (e.g., reservation or flight planning systems).
* FAA's operations and oversight. At an airline's request, FAA may halt the operation of all or part of that airline's flights during an outage and work with the airline to reintegrate flights upon recovery. FAA does not directly oversee airline IT systems but works with airlines to ensure that airline data interfaces correctly with FAA's operational systems.
* DOT's consumer protection. Airline IT outages are not specifically addressed in DOT's consumer protections for passengers, although other protections may apply, such as restrictions on tarmac delays if a passenger is held on a flight during an outage. DOT oversees airlines' adherence to their contracts with passengers. These may include specific provisions such as refund procedures and responsibility for delayed flights, among other things. DOT also receives consumer complaints and uses complaint data to initiate investigations that may result in fines or enforcement actions.
* DOT's data collection. DOT requires large airlines to report information about on-time performance to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), including the causes of flight delays and cancellations in several broad categories (e.g., airline caused, weather, and late-arriving aircraft).
Using multiple sources, GAO identified 34 IT outages from 2015 through 2017, affecting 11 of 12 selected airlines. No government data were available to identify IT outages or determine how many flights or passengers were affected by such outages. BTS data provide information to consumers about airline performance broadly but are not designed to identify the effects of individual events, such as the number of flight delays and cancellations resulting from IT outages. According to GAO's validation of multiple sources, however, about 85 percent of the identified outages resulted in some flight delays or cancellations. Because of limited data, information about how passengers have been inconvenienced from outages is largely anecdotal (see figure for examples of inconveniences). Further, airlines vary in what they provide to these passengers (e.g., food, hotel, or rebooking on another airline) when IT outages occur. Consumer complaints stemming from IT outages accounted for less than one percent of all complaints received by DOT from 2015 through June 2018, and according to agency officials, these complaints raised concerns similar to complaints resulting from other causes of flight disruption. Complaints reviewed by GAO included the lack of food, a hotel, or compensation, among other things."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-514?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "In recent years, the airline industry experienced several well-publicized IT system outages to reservation, check-in, flight planning, and other systems. Such outages can result in widespread disruption to air travel, inconveniencing passengers, who may be delayed or face out-of-pocket costs, and can also affect airlines' revenue and operations. Airlines are responsible for operating and maintaining their IT systems.
GAO was asked to review airline IT outages. GAO examined: (1) DOT's and FAA's roles related to airline IT outages and (2) what is known about these outages and their effects on passengers. GAO identified relevant federal laws and responsibilities and interviewed DOT and FAA officials. In the absence of DOT and FAA data to identify airline IT outages, GAO identified outages using open source documents for the 12 airlines reporting to BTS from 2015 through 2017 and validated these outages using a multi-step process with publicly available airline information, interviews with airline representatives, and FAA and DOT data. GAO also reviewed airlines' contracts of carriage, which are legally binding contracts between airlines and passengers, to understand how airlines accommodate passengers inconvenienced by IT outages, as well as 140 consumer complaints related to airline IT outages received by DOT from 2015 through June 2018."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-514?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Health Care
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the referral management process facilitates the coordination of primary and specialty care for TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. The report (GAO-19-488) is titled "DOD Health Care: Improvements Needed for Tracking Coordination of Specialty Care Referrals for TRICARE Prime Beneficiaries".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, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the referral management process facilitates the coordination of primary and specialty care for TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. The report (GAO-19-488) is titled "DOD Health Care: Improvements Needed for Tracking Coordination of Specialty Care Referrals for TRICARE Prime Beneficiaries". 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 June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Health Agency (DHA) has limited information about the extent to which the referral management process facilitates the coordination of primary and specialty care for beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime--a managed care option--because information about their specialty care referrals is not always complete or accurate. The coordination of care for these beneficiaries is important because they may move between military treatment facilities (MTF) and civilian providers to obtain needed care. DHA requires specialty care providers to share documentation about the care they provided for referring primary care managers to review. This and other information is to be documented in the Referral Management Suite (RMS), the information technology system used by MTF officials to track and process referrals. However, GAO found that the five MTFs it visited had incomplete and unreliable data in RMS due to lack of training and insufficient staff. For example, GAO found that some MTFs were not tracking referral results in RMS due, in part, to lack of training. Officials with each of the military services told GAO that they are aware of RMS reliability issues and have been working to address them through system updates, training, and hiring staff.
DHA has begun to replace RMS and other existing information technology systems with Military Health System (MHS) Genesis, a new electronic health record system. The implementation of MHS Genesis began in 2017 at four MTFs, which have experienced difficulties with system implementation, including with referral management.
* GAO found that the four MTFs using MHS Genesis were not adequately trained on how to use its referral management component prior to the system's deployment. This limited the MTFs' ability to process and track referrals, and led to concerns about the reliability of the system's referral data. While MHS Genesis training on referral management has been redesigned for the next round of MTFs slated for implementation in summer 2019, officials said that it remains unclear whether this training will provide the guidance needed for MTF officials to accurately process and capture information on specialty care referrals. Without adequate training, DHA cannot ensure that the referral data in MHS Genesis accurately reflects the referral experiences of its Prime beneficiaries, potentially impacting the timeliness and quality of care they receive.
* DHA and military service officials who are responsible for developing standardized referral management guidance for the department--the Referral Management Working Group--said that they have not been able to obtain reports about referrals for the four MTFs that use MHS Genesis. The system would need to be configured to produce the types of referral reports needed, according to these officials, who told GAO they have been working with the DHA officials responsible for system implementation to develop such reports. Without reliable reports on referrals, DHA will continue to lack the information it needs about the coordination of care for its TRICARE Prime beneficiaries, impeding its ability to manage referrals, as well as ensuring these beneficiaries receive needed care."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Specialty care referrals are a key component of care coordination for TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. Each Prime beneficiary is assigned to a primary care manager either at an MTF or within the civilian provider network. Primary care managers are responsible for overseeing all aspects of their patients' care, which includes making referrals for specialty care when needed.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to examine care coordination within and between the direct and purchased care systems. Among other objectives, this report examines the extent to which the referral management process facilitates the coordination of primary and specialty care for TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. GAO examined relevant policies; analyzed current referral data from five MTFs it visited, selected for variety in military service, geographic location, and numbers of referrals; and interviewed officials with DHA and the military services. GAO also discussed the implementation of MHS Genesis with officials at DOD and the four MTFs where it has been implemented."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense ensure that (1) MTF referral staff are trained to process and accurately document information in MHS Genesis about specially care referrals and (2) MHS Genesis is configured to produce reports with reliable data on the referral process. DOD concurred with both of these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-488?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on KC-46 Tanker Modernization
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the KC-46 programs progress toward meeting cost, schedule and performance goals. The report (GAO-19-480) is titled "KC-46 Tanker Modernization: Aircraft Delivery Has Begun, but Deficiencies Could Affect Operations and Will Take Time to Correct".The report was sent to Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut, chairman, and Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-Virginia, ranking memberof the House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the KC-46 programs progress toward meeting cost, schedule and performance goals. The report (GAO-19-480) is titled "KC-46 Tanker Modernization: Aircraft Delivery Has Begun, but Deficiencies Could Affect Operations and Will Take Time to Correct". The report was sent to Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut, chairman, and Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-Virginia, ranking memberof the House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "Costs for the KC-46 program remain lower than expected, as shown below.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-480?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Air Force accepted the first KC-46 in January 2019, but Boeing remains nearly 3 years behind schedule. As shown below, Boeing now plans to deliver the first 18 aircraft with all three aerial refueling subsystems by June 2020.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-480?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Program officials expect the KC-46 to meet key performance goals over the next few years as it accumulates 50,000 fleet hours. However, the Air Force is accepting aircraft that do not fully meet contract specifications and have critical deficiencies, including ones that affect (1) the operators' ability to guide the fuel delivery boom into position, and (2) the boom itself. The deficiencies could affect operations and cause damage to stealth aircraft being refueled, making them visible to radar. Program officials estimate it will take 3 to 4 years to develop fixes for the deficiencies and a few more years to retrofit up to 106 aircraft. The Air Force and Boeing will incur costs to fix the deficiencies, with the Air Force's portion estimated to be more than $300 million. The Air Force is withholding 20 percent payment on each aircraft until Boeing fixes the deficiencies and non-compliances. Meanwhile, the Air Force has limited some refueling operations.
GAO identified a number of insights that could benefit other programs, including the use of a fixed-price-type development contract and a correction of deficiencies clause in the contract that protected the government from some cost increases. The Department of Defense agreed to provide lessons learned about the KC-46 program for future acquisition programs based on a recommendation GAO made in March 2012, but does not plan to do so until development is complete in 2021. GAO believes other programs could benefit from insights identified in this report if they were disseminated sooner."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Aerial refueling--the transfer of fuel from airborne tankers to combat and airlift forces--is critical to the U.S. military's ability to effectively operate globally. The Air Force initiated the KC-46 program in 2011 to replace about a third of its aging KC-135 aerial refueling fleet. Boeing was awarded a fixed-price incentive contract to develop the first four aircraft, which are being used for testing. Boeing was also required to deliver the first 18 fully capable aircraft by August 2017. The program plans to eventually field 179 aircraft.
This report assesses the program's progress toward meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals. The report also assesses how the program's contracting and sustainment planning approach could inform other acquisition programs.
GAO analyzed cost, schedule, performance, test, manufacturing, contracting, and sustainment planning documents; and interviewed officials from the KC-46 program office, other defense offices, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Boeing."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Department of Defense disseminate insights in this report about the KC-46's contracting and sustainment planning experiences for consideration by acquisition programs, particularly those that plan to use a fixed-price-type development contract or a commercial derivative aircraft. The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-480?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on VA Health Care
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs' use of community care and efforts to develop budget estimates for this care. The report (GAO-19-478) is titled "VA Health Care: Estimating Resources Needed to Provide Community Care".The report was sent to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, and Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs' use of community care and efforts to develop budget estimates for this care. The report (GAO-19-478) is titled "VA Health Care: Estimating Resources Needed to Provide Community Care". The report was sent to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, and Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on June 12. Here are excerpts of summaries associatedwith the report.
What GAO Found: "To help ensure that veterans are provided timely and accessible health care services, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may purchase care from non-VA providers, known as community care. VA obligated $14.9 billion for community care in fiscal year 2018, an increase of $6.7 billion (about 82 percent) since fiscal year 2014. The number of veterans authorized to use community care increased from 1.3 million to 1.8 million during this period. By fiscal year 2021, VA estimated obligations to increase to $17.8 billion, and officials estimate at least 1.8 million veterans will continue to use this care.
VA uses a projection model to estimate the majority of resources needed to provide health care services. Beginning with the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request, VA updated its model to estimate the resources needed to purchase over 40 community care services accounting for over 75 percent of VA's community care budget estimate. These services include outpatient and inpatient care, among others. For the remainder of its community care budget estimate, which includes nursing care in state-operated homes, VA uses other methods based on historical utilization. VA's budget estimate is successively reviewed at VA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to inform the President's budget request. VA identified several changes made during the review process to its budget estimate for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to reflect more current information related to utilization and costs, among other factors.
VA's actual obligations for community care for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were $1.2 billion and $2.2 billion higher, respectively, than originally estimated. According to VA officials, this occurred for several reasons, including policy changes and increased costs for the Veterans Choice Program. To support higher obligations, VA requested and received additional funding for the Veterans Choice Program outside the annual appropriations process and used other funding sources, such as unobligated amounts from prior fiscal years."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VA continues to focus on the use of community care to address challenges with veterans' access to health care services at VA medical facilities. In fiscal year 2019, VA plans to consolidate the Veterans Choice Program and several other community care programs under a single new Veterans Community Care Program. GAO and others have previously reported on past challenges VA has faced regarding the reliability, transparency, and consistency of its budget estimates for health care.
GAO was asked to review VA's use of community care and efforts to develop budget estimates for this care. This report describes (1) trends in obligations for and utilization of VA's community care programs since fiscal year 2014, (2) how VA develops its community care budget estimate and any subsequent changes made to this estimate, and (3) how VA's actual obligations for community care compared with estimated obligations for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
GAO reviewed actual obligation and utilization data for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, as well as estimated obligations for fiscal years 2019 through 2021. GAO also reviewed available VA documentation on the methods and data used to develop VA's community care budget estimate that informed the President's budget request for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. GAO also interviewed VA officials and contractors responsible for developing these estimates, and OMB staff responsible for the federal budget.
VA and OMB reviewed a draft of this report. VA's technical comments were incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-478?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Agencies' Legacy Systems
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' legacy systems. The report (GAO-19-471) is titled "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Develop Modernization Plans for Critical Legacy Systems".The report was sent to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' legacy systems. The report (GAO-19-471) is titled "Information Technology: Agencies Need to Develop Modernization Plans for Critical Legacy Systems". The report was sent to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald 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 June 11. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Among the 10 most critical legacy systems that GAO identified as in need of modernization (see table 1), several use outdated languages, have unsupported hardware and software, and are operating with known security vulnerabilities. For example, the selected legacy system at the Department of Education runs on Common Business Oriented Language (COBOL)--a programming language that has a dwindling number of people available with the skills needed to support it. In addition, the Department of the Interior's system contains obsolete hardware that is not supported by the manufacturers. Regarding cybersecurity, the Department of Homeland Security's system had a large number of reported vulnerabilities, of which 168 were considered high or critical risk to the network as of September 2018.
View table 1 at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-471?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Of the 10 agencies responsible for these legacy systems, seven agencies (the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, the Treasury; as well as the Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; and Social Security Administration) had documented plans for modernizing the systems (see table 2). The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Transportation did not have documented modernization plans. Of the seven agencies with plans, only the Departments of the Interior and Defense's modernization plans included the key elements identified in best practices (milestones, a description of the work necessary to complete the modernization, and a plan for the disposition of the legacy system). Until the other eight agencies establish complete modernization plans, they will have an increased risk of cost overruns, schedule delays, and project failure.
View table 2 at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-471?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The five examples that GAO selected of successful information technology (IT) modernization initiatives included transforming legacy code into a more modern programming language and moving legacy software to the cloud. Doing so allowed the agencies to reportedly leverage IT to successfully address their missions and achieve a wide range of benefits, including cost savings.
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government plans to spend over $90 billion in fiscal year 2019 on IT. About 80 percent of this amount is used to operate and maintain existing IT investments, including aging (also called legacy) systems. As they age, legacy systems can be more costly to maintain, more exposed to cybersecurity risks, and less effective in meeting their intended purpose.
GAO was asked to review federal agencies' legacy systems. This report (1) identifies the most critical federal legacy systems in need of modernization and evaluates agency plans for modernizing them, and (2) identifies examples of legacy system modernization initiatives that agencies considered successful.
To do so, GAO analyzed a total of 65 legacy systems in need of modernization that 24 agencies had identified. Of these 65, GAO identified the 10 most in need of modernization based on attributes such as age, criticality, and risk. GAO then analyzed agencies' modernization plans for the 10 selected legacy systems against key IT modernization best practices.
The 24 agencies also provided 94 examples of successful IT modernizations from the last 5 years. In addition, GAO identified other examples of modernization successes at these agencies. GAO then selected a total of five examples to highlight a mix of system modernization types and a range of benefits realized.
This is a public version of a sensitive report that is being issued concurrently. Information that agencies deemed sensitive has been omitted."
What GAO Recommends: "In the sensitive report, GAO is making a total of eight recommendations--one to each of eight agencies--to ensure that they document modernization plans for the selected legacy systems.
The eight agencies agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations, and seven of the agencies described plans to address the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-471?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Child Care, Early Education
WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on all state early care and education programs. The report (GAO-19-375) is titled "Child Care and Early Education: Most States Offer Preschool Programs and Rely on Multiple Funding Sources".The report was sent to , Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, on May 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO's national survey of state program officials identified 86 state early care and education (ECE) programs: 73 preschool ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on all state early care and education programs. The report (GAO-19-375) is titled "Child Care and Early Education: Most States Offer Preschool Programs and Rely on Multiple Funding Sources". The report was sent to , Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, on May 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO's national survey of state program officials identified 86 state early care and education (ECE) programs: 73 preschoolprograms serving 3- to 5-year-olds and 13 child care programs serving 0- to 2-year-olds. According to GAO's survey, most programs focused on helping at-risk children become ready for school and improving the quality of their care. In 18 states, survey responses showed that at least two ECE programs shared characteristics, offering similar services (e.g., teacher training) or prioritizing enrolling similar groups of children (e.g., low-income children). Additionally, most state ECE programs offered at least one of the same services or prioritized at least one of the same groups as the federal Head Start program or programs funded by the Child Care and Development Fund. For example, program officials reported that some state ECE programs mirror Head Start so that they can enroll additional children or offer more hours of care per day.
Officials from most state ECE programs GAO surveyed reported using multiple sources to fund their programs. Of the 86 surveyed state ECE programs, 55 reported using at least one funding source in addition to state funds in 2018, and 31 reported using at least two additional sources beyond state funds. Integrating state funds with federal and local funds may broaden the effect and reach of services provided to children and families. Program officials reported a variety of benefits of using multiple funding sources, such as an increased ability to serve more families from targeted populations, as well as challenges such as reconciling different eligibility and reporting requirements."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Each year, millions of children age 5 and under receive publicly funded early care and education services. Federal appropriations for Head Start and the Child Care and Development Fund were $9.8 and $8.1 billion respectively in fiscal year 2018. However, comprehensive information on ECE programs created and funded by states is not available. GAO was asked to identify and describe all state ECE programs.
This report examines (1) the number and characteristics of state ECE programs and the extent to which they share characteristics or overlap with federal or other state programs; and (2) how states fund their ECE programs, including any related benefits and challenges reported by states. GAO sent two surveys to program officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first survey identified state programs providing early learning or child care services to children from birth to age 5, and the second gathered more information about the programs identified, including their characteristics and funding sources. GAO analyzed the survey data to determine which characteristics state programs shared with Head Start, the Child Care and Development Fund, and other state programs, as well as the benefits and challenges of using multiple funding sources."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-375?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Elder Justice
WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on elder justice efforts in the federal criminal justice system. The report (GAO-19-365) is titled "Elder Justice: Goals and Outcome Measures Would Provide DOJ with Clear Direction and a Means to Assess Its Efforts".The report was sent to Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Susan ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on elder justice efforts in the federal criminal justice system. The report (GAO-19-365) is titled "Elder Justice: Goals and Outcome Measures Would Provide DOJ with Clear Direction and a Means to Assess Its Efforts". The report was sent to Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. SusanCollins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on June 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Justice (DOJ) has established several efforts to address elder abuse, including neglect and exploitation, but its planning and assessment of its elder justice efforts are limited. For example, DOJ has established several working groups and in accordance with the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (EAPPA)--enacted in October 2017--designated an elder justice coordinator in each of its 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices. In addition, DOJ provides training and educational materials on elder justice topics for its own staff, as well as state and local officials, and also offers grants to state and local entities that can be used to address elder abuse.
Despite these efforts, DOJ has not developed and documented goals (e.g., enhancing coordination with state and local officials) that articulate the common outcomes it seeks to achieve through its elder justice work. DOJ also has not developed outcome measures that track the agency's progress on its overall elder justice efforts, for example, a means to measure if its coordination practices have been useful and relevant over time to state and local officials. DOJ officials stated that they do have goals, and noted that one of them is to comply with EAPPA. However, implementing the requirements outlined in EAPPA is not a goal that articulates a common outcome that the agency is seeking to achieve through its efforts. Developing and documenting goals and outcome measures, which is consistent with both leading practices and internal control standards, would assist with DOJ's planning--providing direction for what it seeks to achieve--and its assessment of overall effectiveness.
The Department of State has a number of policies and procedures to assist all U.S. citizens arrested abroad, including older U.S. citizens, and the Department of Homeland Security conducts some arrest investigations abroad. For example, trained Department of State staff at overseas posts and in Washington, D.C. provide emergency and non-emergency services to U.S. citizens arrested abroad, such as visits to the place of detention and medical assistance. They also take actions to ensure that U.S. citizens arrested abroad are treated humanely and fairly. In December 2018, the Department of State revised its policies by adding "elderly prisoners" to the list of special arrest cases, or cases that may require additional attention. The Department of Homeland Security investigates arrests in foreign countries of U.S. citizens, including older U.S. citizens, who were tricked into smuggling drugs by international criminal enterprises."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Researchers estimate that as many as 1 in 10 older adults in the United States--age 60 or older--experience abuse each year. Elder abuse may involve physical, sexual, emotional, or financial abuse or neglect. It can occur by family, guardians, or caregivers as well as by strangers and international criminal enterprises, which operate schemes for monetary gain or to facilitate other criminal activities. According to media reports and congressional testimony, some older U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad have unwittingly participated in illicit activities, and in some cases, have been arrested in foreign countries.
EAPPA included a provision for GAO to review elder justice efforts in the federal criminal justice system. This report examines (1) the ways DOJ works to address crimes against older adults, and to what extent DOJ is planning for and assessing its efforts; and (2) how the Departments of State and Homeland Security address the arrest of older U.S. citizens abroad, including arrests involving international criminal enterprises. GAO reviewed agency policy documents, and interviewed agency officials, as well as a nongeneralizable sample of elder abuse stakeholders and state and local officials selected for their experience in this area."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO made two recommendations related to developing and documenting goals and outcome measures for DOJ's elder justice work. In its response, the agency outlined steps to address the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-365?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Insurance Markets
WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on new uses of technologies and potential benefits and challenges for insurers and their customers. The report (GAO-19-423) is titled "Insurance Markets: Benefits and Challenges Presented by Innovative Uses of Technology".The report was sent to Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Georgia, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Scott R. Tipton, R-Colorado, Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, and Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Georgia, on June 7. Here ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on new uses of technologies and potential benefits and challenges for insurers and their customers. The report (GAO-19-423) is titled "Insurance Markets: Benefits and Challenges Presented by Innovative Uses of Technology". The report was sent to Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Georgia, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Scott R. Tipton, R-Colorado, Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, and Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Georgia, on June 7. Hereare excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Insurtech companies (recently established companies bringing technology-enabled innovations to the insurance industry) as well as established insurers have begun to use technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and mobile applications, in an attempt to improve risk assessment and enhance customer experiences. For example:
* Consumers can purchase insurance products specifically tailored to their situation and needs, such as renters or auto insurance that can be turned on and off as needed using a mobile app.
* Some insurers have begun to use nontraditional data (such as from social media) to analyze policyholder risk, and use AI and complex algorithms to reduce costs by automating information gathering and risk assessment.
However, implementing these technologies can create potential challenges for insurers and risks for consumers, including the following:
* The use of AI to create underwriting models for determining premium rates can make it challenging for insurers to ensure that factors prohibited by regulation (such as race) are not used in models. Such models are often developed by data scientists who, unlike actuaries, may not fully understand insurance-specific requirements.
* Insurer collection and use of consumer data not provided by the consumer raise questions about data accuracy, privacy, and ownership.
* Some insurtechs sell coverage through nonadmitted insurers. As we have previously reported, nonadmitted insurers--unlike traditional insurers--are not required to be licensed in each state in which they sell insurance, and receive less regulatory oversight of their policies and rates. Also, if nonadmitted insurers became insolvent, state guaranty funds would not be available to help pay policyholder claims.
Stakeholders with whom GAO spoke identified challenges they said might affect adoption of innovative technologies. These include paper-based documentation requirements that do not accommodate online insurance transactions, and challenges for regulators in the evaluation of complex rating models. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and state regulators have initiated a number of actions designed to address such concerns. For example:
* State insurance regulators, through an NAIC task force, have been examining regulatory areas that may pose obstacles for innovation, such as requirements for paper documentation or signatures.
* NAIC issued draft best practices for states to use when reviewing complex rating models.
* NAIC adopted a model law that creates a legal framework for states to use to require insurance companies to operate cybersecurity programs and protect consumer data.
Because many of these regulatory initiatives are still in development (or recently developed), the effect on innovation and consumer protection is unknown."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The innovative use of technology by insurance companies (insurtech) is growing and offers the potential to improve customer experiences while also lowering insurer costs. Some stakeholders have raised questions about how certain uses of insurtech could create both risks for consumers and challenges for regulators, and whether some challenges might slow technological innovation in the insurance sector.
GAO was asked to provide information on insurtech activities in the property/casualty and life insurance sectors. This report (1) identifies new uses of technologies and potential benefits and challenges for insurers and their customers; and (2) discusses what stakeholders identified as key challenges that could affect the adoption of new technologies, and actions taken to address those challenges. GAO reviewed available literature; analyzed relevant laws and regulations; and conducted interviews with more than 35 stakeholders, including federal and state regulators, technology companies, insurers, and consumer groups (selected based on literature reviews and recommendations, and for relevance to the scope of GAO's review).
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-423?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Immigration Enforcement
WASHINGTON, June 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which Immigration and Customs Enforcement has developed and implemented policies for handling and tracking cases of potentially removable veterans. The report (GAO-19-416) is titled "Immigration Enforcement: Actions Needed to Better Handle, Identify, and Track Cases Involving Veterans".The report was sent to Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Rep. Juan Vargas, D- California, on June 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which Immigration and Customs Enforcement has developed and implemented policies for handling and tracking cases of potentially removable veterans. The report (GAO-19-416) is titled "Immigration Enforcement: Actions Needed to Better Handle, Identify, and Track Cases Involving Veterans". The report was sent to Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Rep. Juan Vargas, D- California, on June 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has developed policies for handling cases of noncitizen veterans who may be subject to removal from the United States, but does not consistently adhere to those policies, and does not consistently identify and track such veterans. When ICE agents and officers learn they have encountered a potentially removable veteran, ICE policies require them to take additional steps to proceed with the case. GAO found that ICE did not consistently follow its policies involving veterans who were placed in removal proceedings from fiscal years 2013 through 2018. Consistent implementation of its policies would help ICE better ensure that veterans receive appropriate levels of review before they are placed in removal proceedings. Additionally, ICE has not developed a policy to identify and document all military veterans it encounters during interviews, and in cases when agents and officers do learn they have encountered a veteran, ICE does not maintain complete electronic data. Therefore, ICE does not have reasonable assurance that it is consistently implementing its policies for handling veterans' cases.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have policies facilitating the naturalization of noncitizen service members and veterans, and provide informational resources to noncitizen service members seeking naturalization. The number of military naturalization applications received by USCIS declined sharply from fiscal years 2017 to 2018, resulting in a decreased number of applications approved in fiscal year 2018. USCIS and DOD officials attributed this decline to several DOD policy changes that reduced the number of noncitizens joining the military.
Citizenship status, including removal history, does not affect a veteran's eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and services. However, living abroad affects eligibility for certain VA benefits and services. Veterans living abroad may also experience challenges accessing certain benefits and services, such as slower disability claim processing."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Throughout U.S. history, noncitizens have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Although the Immigration and Nationality Act allows noncitizen service members to acquire citizenship, some veterans may not apply or may not satisfy all eligibility criteria. If the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that a noncitizen veteran is potentially removable, the veteran may be subject to administrative immigration enforcement and removal. ICE, among other things, is responsible for identifying and removing aliens who violate U.S. immigration law.
GAO was asked to review issues related to the removal of noncitizen veterans. This report examines (1) the extent to which ICE has developed and implemented policies for handling and tracking cases of potentially removable veterans; (2) how federal agencies facilitate the naturalization of noncitizen service members and veterans, and what is known about the number who have applied for naturalization; and (3) how removal affects veterans' eligibility for and access to VA benefits and services. GAO reviewed documentation, met with agency officials, analyzed available data on veterans placed in removal proceedings, and conducted a review of removed veterans' alien files. GAO also analyzed data on military naturalization applications."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that ICE (1) ensure consistent implementation of its existing policies for handling veterans' cases; (2) develop a policy or revise its current policies to identify and document veterans; and (3) collect and maintain complete data on veterans in removal proceedings or who have been removed. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-416?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Missile Defense
WASHINGTON, June 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Missile Defense Agency made progress in developing and delivering integrated regional Ballistic Missile Defense System capabilities. The report (GAO-19-387) is titled "Missile Defense: Delivery Delays Provide Opportunity for Increased Testing to Better Understand Capability".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Missile Defense Agency made progress in developing and delivering integrated regional Ballistic Missile Defense System capabilities. The report (GAO-19-387) is titled "Missile Defense: Delivery Delays Provide Opportunity for Increased Testing to Better Understand Capability". 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 June 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In fiscal year 2018, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) made progress toward achieving its delivery and testing goals for some of the individual systems--known as elements--that combine and integrate to create the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). MDA is also making progress testing for integrated capabilities, which are achieved by combining BMDS elements. However, MDA did not meet its planned goals. The figure below shows MDA's progress delivering assets and conducting tests against its fiscal year 2018 plans.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-387?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
* MDA delivered a significant integrated capability for defending the United States, meeting a goal set by the Secretary of Defense in March 2013 to increase the inventory of ground-based interceptors by December 2017.
* Other on-time deliveries included software upgrades and additional assets. However, developmental challenges and testing failures contributed to MDA being unable to deliver all assets as planned.
* MDA completed four of eight flight tests. MDA successfully conducted testing to support a production decision; however, it was unable to complete its annual test plan due to failures, cancellations, and delays.
MDA has delayed the delivery of the BMDS's European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) Phase 3--which is intended to protect allies from Iranian threats--until 2020. Construction contractor issues at the planned Aegis Ashore site in Poland drove the delay. At the same time, testing for EPAA Phase 3 against planned threats has been substantially reduced and other vital testing has been deferred until after delivery. MDA officials consider EPAA testing for Phase 3 delivery complete. However, DOD guidance and acquisition best practices stress the importance of testing to understand the extent of capabilities and how to deploy them. The 18-month delay to EPAA Phase 3 provides MDA an opportunity to conduct additional testing and collect more performance data. This testing could provide the warfighter with more information and confidence in the system's ability to protect our allies against expected ballistic missile threats."
Why GAO Did This Study: "For over half a century, the Department of Defense (DOD) has funded efforts to defend the United States from ballistic missile attacks. From 2002 to 2017, MDA has received about $142 billion and has requested 46.7 billion through fiscal year 2023 to develop the BMDS. The BMDS consists of diverse and highly complex land-, sea-, and space-based systems and assets located across the globe, including planned sites in Romania and Poland to protect United States forces and allies in Europe.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as amended, included a provision that GAO annually assess and report on MDA's progress. Among other objectives, this report addresses for fiscal year 2018 (1) the progress MDA made in achieving delivery and testing goals and (2) the extent to which MDA made progress in developing and delivering integrated regional BMDS capabilities. GAO reviewed the planned fiscal year 2018 baselines and other program documentation and assessed them against program and baseline reviews and GAO's acquisition best practices guides, and interviewed officials from relevant agencies."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is recommending that MDA use the schedule margin afforded by the European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3 delay to conduct testing necessary to more thoroughly assess, prior to delivery, the capabilities and limitations of Phase 3 against the expected missile threat. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-387?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Aviation Security
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's measures to prevent behavior detection activities from resulting in unlawful profiling. The report (GAO-19-268) is titled "Aviation Security: TSA Has Policies that Prohibit Unlawful Profiling But Should Improve Its Oversight of Behavior Detection Activities".The report was sent to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's measures to prevent behavior detection activities from resulting in unlawful profiling. The report (GAO-19-268) is titled "Aviation Security: TSA Has Policies that Prohibit Unlawful Profiling But Should Improve Its Oversight of Behavior Detection Activities". The report was sent to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-New Jersey, on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "Transportation Security Administration (TSA) policy requires managers to ensure behavior detection is conducted without regard to race or ethnicity, among other factors. TSA uses seven oversight checklists to assess whether behavior detection activities are conducted in accordance with TSA policy, such as monitoring whether screeners trained in behavior detection observe and engage passengers correctly. However, these checklists do not instruct supervisors to monitor for indications of profiling. TSA officials stated that the training screeners receive, adherence to operating procedures, and general supervisory oversight are sufficient to alert supervisors to situations when unlawful profiling may occur. However, developing a specific mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with policies prohibiting unlawful profiling would provide TSA with greater assurance that screeners are adhering to such policies.
From October 2015 through February 2018, TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. These complaints are not specific to behavior detection activities. The TSA Contact Center (TCC), the office that initially receives these complaints, reported that about half of the complaints did not have complete information from passengers necessary for further review, such as the airport and date of the incident. According to TCC officials, they attempt to obtain the additional information from passengers, but often the complaint does not include the correct contact information or the passenger does not respond to the TCC's request for additional information. The TCC complaint data show that the remaining 51 percent (about 1,900) of complaints were referred to the TSA Multicultural Branch, the office responsible for reviewing complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations. The Multicultural Branch reported reviewing 2,059 complaints, including approximately 1,900 complaints from TCC, as well as complaints referred from other TSA offices. For about half of the complaints (1,066) the Multicultural Branch reviewed, it found indications of potential discrimination and unprofessional conduct that involved race or other factors and recommended a range of refresher training across airports or for screeners at individual airports identified in the complaints."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2016, TSA began using behavior detection in a more limited way to identify potentially high-risk passengers who exhibit certain behaviors it asserts are indicative of stress, fear, or deception, and refer them for additional screening or, when warranted, to law enforcement. TSA's policies and procedures prohibit unlawful profiling, i.e., screeners are prohibited from selecting passengers for additional screening based on race, ethnicity, or other factors. Allegations of racial profiling have raised questions about TSA's use of behavior detection.
GAO was asked to review TSA's measures to prevent behavior detection activities from resulting in unlawful profiling. This report examines, among other things, (1) TSA's oversight of behavior detection activities and (2) the number of complaints alleging violations of civil rights and civil liberties related to passenger screening and actions taken by TSA to address them.
GAO reviewed TSA policies and procedures; analyzed passenger complaint data received by TSA from October 2015 through February 2018 and actions taken to address them; and interviewed TSA officials. Complaint data we analyzed alleged conduct that occurred at the screening checkpoint and was not specific to behavior detection activities."
What GAO Recommends: "TSA should develop a specific oversight mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with policies that prohibit unlawful profiling. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-268?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Real Property
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the General Services Administration's delegated leasing program. The report (GAO-19-405) is titled "Federal Real Property: GSA Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Its Delegated Leasing Program".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, on June 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The General Services Administration (GSA) has taken steps to reform its delegated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the General Services Administration's delegated leasing program. The report (GAO-19-405) is titled "Federal Real Property: GSA Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Its Delegated Leasing Program". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, on June 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The General Services Administration (GSA) has taken steps to reform its delegatedleasing program, but data reliability issues remain. For example, GSA created GSA's Real Estate Exchange (G-REX) to centralize delegated lease requests and approvals, but GAO found G-REX had incorrect information on lease rental values and rates--reporting rates 12 times higher than they actually were. Moreover, GAO found that GSA was not annually reconciling data between G-REX and the government-wide real property database, per GSA's own procedures. GSA officials said that their past efforts to fully reconcile the data were unsuccessful but acknowledged there may be ways to compare the data to improve the reliability of both datasets. Until GSA clarifies what it can do to partially reconcile the data sets, it is not obtaining the intended benefits of this data validation exercise.
GSA does not know if agencies have the ability to manage their delegated leasing activities because it does not regularly assess their policies and procedures, or their performance in meeting GSA's management goals, such as avoiding extensions. GSA procedures state that GSA will consider the agency's organizational structure and ability to meet certain GSA performance measures prior to granting requests for delegated leasing authority. Moreover, federal internal control standards call for agencies to design control activities to better manage the program. However, GSA officials said that GSA relies on the agencies to oversee their own delegated leases. Nevertheless, GAO found instances of inadequate policies and procedures at one agency in managing its delegated leasing activities. Further, all 4 agencies had delegated leases that were in holdover status (occupying a space beyond the expiration of the lease term), which violates program requirements. Because GSA does not regularly assess agencies' procedures or performance, it cannot ensure that agencies are effectively managing their delegated leasing activities.
GSA cannot ensure that the leases agencies execute under delegated authority meet program requirements and are within the authority granted because it lacks key procedures to do so. GAO found that GSA had only reviewed 1 percent of the post lease award documents agencies had submitted, and in some cases, agencies had not submitted required documentation. GSA officials said the agencies are responsible for ensuring that documents are submitted and requirements are met. However, a risk-based assessment of a selection of delegated leases' post award documents can provide assurances that agencies comply with existing regulations and prevent potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Because GSA did not have a process to systematically review these documents, GSA is unable to ensure that delegated leases meet requirements and that agencies are positioned to prevent fraud, waste, or abuse."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As the federal government's landlord, GSA is authorized to lease property to accommodate federal agencies. It can also delegate this authority to other agencies, though GSA is still responsible for overseeing the delegated leasing program. However, prior audits found problems with delegated leasing, including excessive rental rates and insufficient documentation to support that the government received a fair and reasonable price for the lease.
GAO was asked to review GSA's delegated leasing program. This report examines: 1) GSA's efforts to reform its delegated leasing program; 2) the extent to which GSA assesses agencies' policies, procedures, and performance in managing their delegated leasing activities; and 3) the extent to which GSA ensures delegated leases meet requirements. GAO reviewed federal statutes and regulations, and GSA's guidance and data on delegated leases. To illustrate how GSA approves and oversees delegated leases, GAO judgmentally reviewed 17 delegated leases selected to include lease contract value, type of lease, and agencies with high number of delegated leases. GAO interviewed officials from GSA and the four agencies associated with GAO's selected delegated leases."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that GSA (1) reconcile its databases; (2) regularly assess agency procedures for managing delegated leasing, (3) track agency performance, and (4) develop a review process for post lease award documents. GSA agreed with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-405?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Renewable Fuel Standard
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The report (GAO-19-47) is titled "Renewable Fuel Standard: Information on Likely Program Effects on Gasoline Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions".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 May 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Effect on prices. Evidence from studies, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The report (GAO-19-47) is titled "Renewable Fuel Standard: Information on Likely Program Effects on Gasoline Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". 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 May 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Effect on prices. Evidence from studies,interviews with experts, and GAO's analysis suggest that the nationwide Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was likely associated with modest gasoline price increases outside of the Midwest and that these price increases may have diminished over time. Variations in these gasoline price effects likely depended, in part, on state-by-state variation in the costs to transport and store ethanol. For example, the Midwest was already producing and blending ethanol when the RFS came into effect, so that region had lower transportation costs and had already invested in necessary storage infrastructure. Other regions began blending ethanol later to meet the RFS's requirements, thereby incurring new transportation and storage infrastructure costs that resulted in gasoline prices that were several cents per gallon higher than they otherwise would have been.
In addition, experts told GAO that the RFS caused an initial increase in refining investment costs that, over the long term, reduced refining costs for gasoline. Specifically, once all locations had made the infrastructure investments and most gasoline blendstock produced was consistent with blending ethanol then there would be two continuing effects: (1) the transportation and blending costs of ethanol, which would tend to push retail prices higher and depend on the distance traveled and the modes of transport, and (2) the lower cost of producing lower octane blendstock. The former effect might dominate for locations far from the production source of ethanol and for which more costly modes of transport were used, while the lower blendstock costs might dominate for locations close to the production source of ethanol and/or those that have low transportation costs.
GAO's analysis of the effect that state ethanol mandates had on gasoline prices also showed gasoline price effects that differed in the Midwest and elsewhere. Specifically, during the period GAO studied, when the ethanol mandates in Minnesota and Missouri were in effect, all else remaining equal, retail gasoline prices were lower by about 8 and 5 cents per gallon in these states, respectively, than they would have been without the mandates. In contrast, when the ethanol mandates in Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington were in effect, GAO's model showed that retail gasoline prices were higher by about 8, 2, and 6 cents per gallon, respectively, than they would have been without the ethanol mandates. These results suggest that the RFS likely had gasoline price effects in other states that did not have state-wide ethanol mandates but that incrementally began blending ethanol as a result of increasing RFS requirements that by around 2010 had led to almost all gasoline sold in the United States being blended with 10 percent ethanol.
Effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the experts GAO interviewed generally agreed that, to date, the RFS has likely had a limited effect, if any, on greenhouse gas emissions. According to the experts and GAO's prior work, the effect has likely been limited for reasons including: (1) the reliance of the RFS to date on conventional corn-starch ethanol, which has a smaller potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared with advanced biofuels, and (2) that most corn-starch ethanol has been produced in plants exempt from emissions reduction requirements, likely limiting reductions early on when plants were less efficient than they are today.
Further, the RFS is unlikely to meet the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals envisioned for the program through 2022. Specifically, GAO reported in November 2016 that advanced biofuels, which achieve greater greenhouse gas reductions than conventional corn-starch ethanol, have been uneconomical to produce at the volumes required by the RFS statute so the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has waived most of these requirements (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-47?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Renewable identification numbers. EPA uses renewable identification numbers (RINs) to regulate industry compliance with RFS requirements for blending biofuels into the nation's transportation fuel supply. In GAO's March 2014 report on petroleum refining, GAO noted that the RFS had increased compliance costs for the domestic petroleum refining industry or individual refiners. GAO reported that corn-based ethanol RIN prices had been low--from 1 to 5 cents per gallon from 2006 through much of 2012--but in 2013, RIN prices increased to over $1.40 per gallon in July before declining to about 20 cents per gallon as of mid-November 2013. Since the March 2014 report, corn-ethanol RIN prices have experienced more periods of volatility. Most experts and stakeholders GAO interviewed recently stated that RINs had either a small effect on prices or no effect on prices, though a few disagreed. Finally, GAO's past work, as well as EPA analysis, has identified several issues of concern with RINs, including possible fraud in the market and concerns about the effect on small refiners, price volatility, and the point of obligation."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Congress established the RFS in 2005 and expanded it 2 years later. The RFS generally mandates that transportation fuels--typically gasoline and diesel--sold in the United States contain increasing amounts of biofuels. In addition, the RFS is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing petroleum-based fuels with biofuels expected to have lower associated greenhouse gas emissions. The most common biofuel currently produced in the United States is corn-starch ethanol, distilled from the sugars in corn. EPA uses RINs associated with biofuels blended with petroleum-based fuels to regulate compliance with the program.
In 2014, GAO found that refiners' costs for complying with the RFS had increased, and in 2016, GAO found that greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to be reduced to the extent anticipated because production of advanced biofuels--which reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than corn-starch ethanol--has not kept pace with the yearly increases or the target of 21 billion gallons by 2022 called for by the statute. GAO was asked to review additional issues related to the effects of the RFS.
This report examines what is known about (1) the effect the RFS has had to date on retail gasoline prices in the United States and (2) the RFS's effect on greenhouse gas emissions and whether the RFS will meet its goals for reducing those emissions. The report also provides information about RINs.
To address the likely effects of the RFS on gasoline prices, GAO reviewed studies and interviewed experts and industry stakeholders, and conducted a statistical analysis of state ethanol mandates that were similar to the mandates of the RFS. GAO selected the experts based on their published work and recognition in the professional community. GAO selected stakeholders representing a range of perspectives, including stakeholders from the renewable fuels, petroleum, and agricultural industries, as well as from environmental groups.
Because the RFS was implemented on a nationwide basis at the same time that other factors, such as the global price of crude oil and domestic demand for retail gasoline, were affecting retail gasoline prices across the nation, it is not possible to directly isolate and measure the effect the RFS had on gasoline prices nationwide given data available to GAO. Instead GAO developed and extensively tested an econometric model that estimated the effects on retail gasoline prices of state ethanol mandates. These state mandates are similar to the RFS but were put in place voluntarily by states before the RFS led to widespread ethanol blending in every state. This model estimated how ethanol mandates affected gasoline prices in these five states. These estimates suggest the RFS likely had effects in states that did not have state-wide mandates. These states incrementally blended ethanol because of the increasing volumes of ethanol required to be blended nationally by the RFS.
Regarding the RFS's effect on greenhouse gas emissions, GAO interviewed 13 experts in government and academia. GAO selected these experts based on their published work, prior GAO work, and recommendations from other experts.
During the course of the work, GAO gathered information on the topic of RINs through interviews, a review of relevant literature, and prior GAO work.
GAO makes no recommendations in this report. In commenting on a draft of this report, USDA disagreed with GAO's finding that the RFS has had a limited effect on greenhouse gas emissions, citing research on the effects of ethanol on reducing emissions generally. GAO reported on the specific effects of the RFS on emissions. USDA also criticized GAO's methodology using experts' views. GAO employed that method to reach consensus among those with a range of perspectives. DOE and EPA did not comment on the draft report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-47?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on School Meals Programs
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. The report (GAO-19-389) is titled "School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments but Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks".The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, chairman of the Senate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. The report (GAO-19-389) is titled "School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments but Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks". The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, chairman of the SenateAgriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade, and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, on May 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors--for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable--are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices--extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes--address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework--including those in the figure below--will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-389?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that USDA establish a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments for the school meals programs that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework. USDA generally agreed with the recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-389?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on West Bank, Gaza
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to U.S. education assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. The report (GAO-19-448) is titled "West Bank and Gaza: State Has Taken Actions to Address Potentially Problematic Textbook Content but Should Improve Its Reporting to Congress".The report was sent to Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on June 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. government funded an estimated $243 million for education assistance ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to U.S. education assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. The report (GAO-19-448) is titled "West Bank and Gaza: State Has Taken Actions to Address Potentially Problematic Textbook Content but Should Improve Its Reporting to Congress". The report was sent to Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on June 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The U.S. government funded an estimated $243 million for education assistancein the West Bank and Gaza (WBG) for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, including an estimated $193 million from the Department of State (State) and about $50 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Of State's contribution of approximately $193 million, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) estimated that about $187 million was provided for its education assistance. State provided the remaining approximately $6 million for non-UNRWA education projects. UNRWA purchased English language textbooks used in UNRWA schools with funds that consist of contributions from donor countries, including the United States. The U.S. government and UNRWA did not fund textbooks published by the Palestinian Authority because the Palestinian Authority provided these textbooks free of charge, according to agency officials.
UNRWA and State have taken steps to identify and address potentially problematic content of textbooks used in UNRWA schools, such as maps that exclude Israel. UNRWA reviewed textbooks, including English language textbooks, and took actions to address content it deemed as not aligned with UN values. For example, UNRWA created complementary teaching materials, such as alternate photos, examples, and guidance for teachers to use with the textbooks in UNRWA schools. However, due to financial shortfalls and other constraints, UNRWA officials told GAO that UNRWA did not train teachers or distribute the complementary teaching materials to classrooms. As a result, these materials were not used in UNRWA classrooms. To address textbook content deemed problematic, State examined nongovernmental organizations' studies, encouraged Palestinian Authority officials to address the issue, and monitored UNRWA's efforts.
The annual appropriations acts for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 require State to report to Congress on several topics, including steps UNRWA has taken to ensure that the content of all educational materials taught in UNRWA schools is consistent with the values of human rights, dignity, and tolerance, and do not induce incitement. Although State submitted its required reports to Congress on time, State included inaccurate information in the 2017 report and omitted potentially useful information in all three reports. In its 2017 report, State noted incorrectly that UNRWA had completed training teachers and distributed complementary teaching materials to address textbook content that UNRWA deemed as not complying with UN values. In all three of the reports, State omitted information concerning whether UNRWA found that any educational materials used in its schools do not comply with two of four elements, dignity and not inducing incitement. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives and communicate it in a way that is useful to users. Without a fuller explanation, Congress may not have the information it needs to oversee efforts to identify and address potentially problematic textbook content."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The U.S. government has funded education assistance to Palestinians. The State Department oversees U.S. contributions to UNRWA, and USAID provides assistance to Palestinian Authority schools. UNRWA generally administers schools for Palestine refugees. The Palestinian Authority generally administers schools for non-refugee Palestinians who live in the WBG. During the 2016-2017 school year, it issued new pilot textbooks for grades 1 through 4 for use in both its and UNRWA's schools. GAO was asked to review issues related to U.S. education assistance to the WBG.
This report examines (1) the funding the U.S. government provided for education assistance to the WBG for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, (2) how UNRWA and State have identified and addressed potentially problematic content in textbooks, and (3) whether State has submitted required annual reports to Congress including information on educational materials used in UNRWA schools. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents and interviewed U.S. government, UNRWA, and Palestinian Authority officials. For this report, GAO refers to potentially problematic content as that which State defined as inappropriate and that UNRWA defined as not aligned with UN values."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO made four recommendations in our April 2018 report that State improve its reports to Congress, including to ensure the information presented is accurate and to provide additional information on the textbook content UNRWA identified as not aligned with UN values. State implemented all of GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-448?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Critical Infrastructure Protection
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation roles and responsibilities for pipeline security. The report (GAO-19-426) is titled "Critical Infrastructure Protection: Key Pipeline Security Documents Need to Reflect Current Operating Environment".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, Rep. Mike Rogers, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation roles and responsibilities for pipeline security. The report (GAO-19-426) is titled "Critical Infrastructure Protection: Key Pipeline Security Documents Need to Reflect Current Operating Environment". 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, Rep. Mike Rogers,R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on June 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The memorandum of understanding (MOU) Annex signed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in 2006 delineates their mutually agreed-upon roles and responsibilities for pipeline security, but has not been reviewed to consider pipeline security developments since its inception. As a result, the annex may not fully reflect the agencies' pipeline security and safety-related activities. Efforts to update the annex were delayed by other priorities. As of June 2019, there are no timeframes for completion. By developing and implementing timeframes for reviewing the MOU Annex and updating it, as appropriate, TSA and PHMSA could better ensure any future changes to their respective roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated and updated on a regular basis.
TSA's Pipeline Security and Incident Recovery Protocol Plan, issued in March 2010, defines the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies and the private sector, among others, related to pipeline security incidents. For example, in response to a pipeline incident, TSA coordinates information sharing between federal and pipeline stakeholders and PHMSA coordinates federal activities with an affected pipeline operator to restore service. However, TSA has not revised the plan to reflect changes in at least three key areas: pipeline security threats, such as those related to cybersecurity, incident management policies, and DHS's terrorism alert system. By periodically reviewing and, as appropriate, updating its plan, TSA could better ensure it addresses changes in pipeline security threats and federal law and policy related to cybersecurity, incident management and DHS's terrorism alert system, among other things. TSA could also provide greater assurance that pipeline stakeholders understand federal roles and responsibilities related to pipeline incidents, including cyber incidents, and that response efforts to such incidents are well-coordinated."
Why GAO Did This Study: "More than 2.7 million miles of pipeline transport natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids needed to operate vehicles and heat homes, among other things, in the United States.
Responsibility for safeguarding these pipelines is shared by TSA, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); PHMSA, within the Department of Transportation (DOT); and pipeline operators. TSA oversees the security of all transportation modes, including pipelines. PHMSA oversees pipeline safety. DHS and DOT signed a MOU on their roles across all transportation modes in 2004. In 2006, TSA and PHMSA signed an annex to the MOU (MOU Annex) to further delineate their pipeline security-related responsibilities.
The TSA Modernization Act includes a provision for GAO to review DHS and DOT roles and responsibilities for pipeline security. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the extent the MOU Annex delineates TSA's and PHMSA's pipeline security roles and responsibilities; and (2) the extent TSA has communicated federal incident response procedures for pipeline breaches to stakeholders. GAO reviewed the MOU annex and related documents and TSA's Pipeline Security and Incident Recovery Protocol Plan, and interviewed officials from PHMSA, TSA, and four pipeline associations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that: (1) TSA and PHMSA develop and implement a timeline for reviewing and, as appropriate, updating the 2006 MOU Annex; and (2) TSA periodically review, and as appropriate, update its 2010 pipeline incident recovery plan. DHS and DOT concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-426?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Disaster Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on disaster assistance for individuals who are older or have disabilities. The report (GAO-19-318) is titled "Disaster Assistance: FEMA Action Needed to Better Support Individuals Who Are Older or Have Disabilities".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. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Small ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on disaster assistance for individuals who are older or have disabilities. The report (GAO-19-318) is titled "Disaster Assistance: FEMA Action Needed to Better Support Individuals Who Are Older or Have Disabilities". 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. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship Committee, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, 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 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. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member 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 May 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "A range of officials from entities that partner with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--including states, territories, localities, and nonprofits)--reported challenges providing assistance to individuals who are older or have disabilities following the 2017 hurricanes. For example, officials said that many of these individuals required specialized assistance obtaining food, water, medicine, and oxygen, but aid was sometimes difficult to provide. Officials in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands cited particular difficulties providing this assistance due to damaged roads and communication systems, as well as a lack of documentation of nursing home locations.
Based on GAO's analysis of FEMA data and interviews with FEMA officials and stakeholders, aspects of the process to apply for assistance from FEMA after the 2017 hurricanes were challenging for older individuals and those with disabilities. According to stakeholders and FEMA officials, disability-related questions in the registration materials are confusing and easily misinterpreted. For example, FEMA's registration process does not include an initial question that directly asks individuals if they have a disability or if they would like to request an accommodation for completing the application process (see figure below). While FEMA has made efforts to help registrants interpret the questions, it has not yet changed the language of the questions to improve clarity. As a result, individuals with disabilities may not have requested accommodations or reported having disabilities, which may have hindered FEMA's ability to identify and assist them.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-318?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
FEMA did not establish objectives before implementing its new approach to disability integration, which includes adding new disability integration staff in the regions and decreasing the number of disability integration advisors deployed to disaster sites. Without documented objectives for the new approach, regional leadership across the nation may implement changes inconsistently. In addition, the new approach shifts the responsibility for directly assisting individuals with disabilities to all FEMA staff. FEMA has taken some initial steps to provide training on the changes; however, it has not established a plan for delivering comprehensive disability-related training to all staff who will be directly interacting with individuals with disabilities. Developing a plan to train all staff would better position FEMA to achieve its intended goals and better equip deployed staff to identify and assist these survivors."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Three sequential hurricanes--Harvey, Irma, and Maria--affected more than 28 million people in 2017, according to FEMA. Hurricane survivors aged 65 and older and those with disabilities faced particular challenges evacuating to safe shelter, accessing medicine, and obtaining recovery assistance. In June 2018, FEMA began implementing a new approach to assist individuals with disabilities.
GAO was asked to review disaster assistance for individuals who are older or have disabilities. This report addresses (1) challenges FEMA partners reported in providing assistance to such individuals, (2) challenges such individuals faced accessing assistance from FEMA and actions FEMA took to address these challenges, and (3) the extent to which FEMA has implemented its new approach to disability integration.
GAO analyzed FEMA data and reviewed relevant federal laws, agency policy, and federal frameworks. GAO also interviewed state, territorial, local, and nonprofit officials in Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; FEMA officials at headquarters, in regional offices, and deployed to disaster sites; and officials at relevant nonprofit organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations to FEMA, including that it establish new registration questions, objectives for its new disability integration approach, and a training plan for FEMA staff. The agency concurred with all but one of the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-318?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOD Acquisition Reform
WASHINGTON, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress the Department of Defense has made implementing selected oversight reforms related to major defense acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-439) is titled "DOD Acquisition Reform: Leadership Attention Needed to Effectively Implement Changes to Acquisition Oversight".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, June 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress the Department of Defense has made implementing selected oversight reforms related to major defense acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-439) is titled "DOD Acquisition Reform: Leadership Attention Needed to Effectively Implement Changes to Acquisition Oversight". 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 June 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has made progress in implementing reforms to restructure the oversight of major defense acquisition programs. As a result of one of these reforms, decision-making authority for many programs shifted from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the military departments (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-439?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Questions remain about how some reforms GAO reviewed will be carried out. For example, no programs have been required to have cost and fielding goals set under DOD's new process yet, and DOD has formed a working group to determine when to delegate risk assessments to the military departments.
DOD also began using new pathways referred to as middle-tier acquisition to rapidly prototype and field new weapon systems. Middle-tier programs are expected to field capabilities within 2 to 5 years. As of March 2019, military departments were using this authority for 35 unclassified programs (see table).
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-439?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
DOD has yet to fully determine how it will oversee middle-tier acquisition programs, including what information should be required to ensure informed decisions about program selection and how to measure program performance. Without consistent oversight, DOD is not well positioned to ensure that these programs--some of which are multibillion dollar acquisitions--are likely to meet expectations for delivering prototypes or capability to the warfighter quickly.
DOD also continues to face implementation challenges, including one related to disagreements about oversight roles and responsibilities between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments. Senior DOD leadership has not fully addressed these disagreements. As a result, DOD is at risk of not achieving an effective balance between oversight and accountability and efficient program management."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Amid concerns about the ability of DOD's acquisition process to keep pace with evolving threats, Congress included numerous reforms in recent National Defense Authorization Acts that could help to streamline acquisition oversight and field capabilities faster.
GAO was asked to examine DOD's efforts to implement these reforms. This report addresses (1) the progress DOD has made implementing selected oversight reforms related to major defense acquisition programs; (2) how DOD has used middle-tier acquisition pathways; and (3) challenges DOD faces related to reform implementation. GAO reviewed five reforms: milestone decision authority designation; cost, fielding, and performance goals; independent technical risk assessments; restructuring of acquisition oversight offices; and middle-tier acquisition. GAO analyzed applicable statutes and implementing guidance, collected information from DOD about the number and types of middle-tier acquisition programs, reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed DOD officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOD should identify the types of information needed to select and oversee middle-tier acquisition programs consistently, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments for acquisition oversight. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations and described actions planned to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-439?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on 2020 Census
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Census Bureau's management of risks to the 2020 census. The report (GAO-19-399) is titled "2020 Census: Additional Actions Needed to Manage Risk".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking member ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Census Bureau's management of risks to the 2020 census. The report (GAO-19-399) is titled "2020 Census: Additional Actions Needed to Manage Risk". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Virginia, chairman, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, ranking memberof the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, on May 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "As of December 2018, the Census Bureau (Bureau) had identified 360 active risks to the 2020 Census. Of these, 242 required a mitigation plan and 232 had one; 146 required a contingency plan and 102 had one (see table). Mitigation plans detail how an agency will reduce the likelihood of a risk event and its impacts, if it occurs. Contingency plans identify how an agency will reduce or recover from the impact of a risk after it has been realized. Bureau guidance states that these plans should be developed as soon as possible after a risk is added to the risk register, but it does not establish clear time frames for doing so. Consequently, some risks may go without required plans for extended periods.
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-399?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO reviewed the mitigation and contingency plans in detail for six risks which the Bureau identified as among the major concerns that could affect the 2020 Census. These included cybersecurity incidents and integration of the 52 systems and 35 operations supporting the census. GAO found that the plans did not consistently include key information needed to manage the risk. For example, three of the mitigation plans and five of the contingency plans did not include all key activities. Among these was the Bureau's cybersecurity mitigation plan. During an August 2018 public meeting, the Bureau's Chief Information Officer discussed key strategies for mitigating cybersecurity risks to the census--such as reliance on other federal agencies to help resolve threats--not all of which were included in the mitigation plan.
GAO found that gaps stemmed from either requirements missing from the Bureau's decennial risk management plan, or that risk owners were not fulfilling all of their risk management responsibilities. Bureau officials said that risk owners are aware of these responsibilities but do not always fulfill them given competing demands. Bureau officials also said that they are managing risks to the census, even if not always reflected in their mitigation and contingency plans. However, if such actions are reflected in disparate documents or are not documented at all, then decision makers are left without an integrated and comprehensive picture of how the Bureau is managing risks to the census.
The Bureau has designed an approach for managing fraud risk to the 2020 Census that generally aligns with leading practices in the commit, assess, and design and implement components of GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. However, the Bureau has not yet determined the program's fraud risk tolerance or outlined plans for referring potential fraud to the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate. Bureau officials described plans to take these actions later this year, but not for updating the antifraud strategy. Updating this strategy to include the Bureau's fraud risk tolerance and OIG referral plan will help ensure the strategy is current, complete, and conforms to leading practices."
Why GAO Did This Study: "With less than 1 year until Census Day, many risks remain. For example, the Bureau has had challenges developing critical information technology systems, and new innovations--such as the ability to respond via the internet--have raised questions about potential security and fraud risks. Fundamental to risk management is the development of risk mitigation and contingency plans to reduce the likelihood of risks and their impacts, should they occur.
GAO was asked to review the Bureau's management of risks to the 2020 Census. This report examines (1) what risks the Bureau has identified, (2) the risks for which the Bureau has mitigation and contingency plans, (3) the extent to which the plans included information needed to manage risk, and (4) the extent to which the Bureau's fraud risk approach aligns with leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. GAO interviewed officials, assessed selected mitigation and contingency plans against key attributes, and assessed the Bureau's approach to managing fraud risk against GAO's Fraud Risk Framework."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that the Bureau set clear time frames for developing mitigation and contingency plans, require that mitigation and contingency plans include all key attributes, hold risk owners accountable for carrying out their risk management responsibilities, and update its antifraud strategy to include a fraud risk tolerance and OIG referral plan. The Department of Commerce agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-399?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Retirement Security
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which parental or spousal caregiving affects retirement security. The report (GAO-19-382) is titled "Retirement Security: Some Parental and Spousal Caregivers Face Financial Risks".The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, on May 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "An estimated one in 10 Americans per year cared for a parent or spouse ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which parental or spousal caregiving affects retirement security. The report (GAO-19-382) is titled "Retirement Security: Some Parental and Spousal Caregivers Face Financial Risks". The report was sent to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, on May 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "An estimated one in 10 Americans per year cared for a parent or spousefor some period of time from 2011 through 2017, and women were more likely than men to provide care, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data. Both parental and spousal caregivers were older than the general population, with spousal caregivers generally being the oldest. In addition, spousal caregivers were less likely to have completed college or to be employed, and they had lower earnings than parental caregivers and the general population. Most parental and spousal caregivers provided care for several years, and certain groups were more likely to provide daily care, including women and minorities.
Some caregivers experienced adverse effects on their jobs and had less in retirement assets and income.
* According to data from a 2015 caregiving-specific study, an estimated 68 percent of working parental and spousal caregivers experienced job impacts, such as going to work late, leaving early, or taking time off during the day to provide care. Spousal caregivers were more likely to experience job impacts than parental caregivers (81 percent compared to 65 percent, respectively).
* According to 2002 to 2014 data from the Health and Retirement Study, spousal caregivers ages 59 to 66 had lower levels of retirement assets and less income than married non-caregivers of the same ages. Specifically, spousal caregivers had an estimated 50 percent less in individual retirement account (IRA) assets, 39 percent less in non-IRA assets, and 11 percent less in Social Security income. However, caregiving may not be the cause of these results as there are challenges to isolating the effect of caregiving from other factors that could affect retirement assets and income.
Expert interviews and a review of relevant literature identified a number of actions that could improve caregivers' retirement security, which GAO grouped into four policy categories. Experts identified various benefits to caregivers and others from the policy categories--as well as pointing out possible significant costs, such as fiscal concerns and employer challenges--and in general said that taking actions across categories would help address caregivers' needs over both the short-term and long-term (see figure). Several experts also said public awareness initiatives are critical to helping people understand the implications of caregiving on their retirement security. For example, they pointed to the need for education about how decisions to provide care, leave the workforce, or reduce hours could affect long-term financial security."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-382?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people in the United States over age 65 is expected to almost double by 2050. As Americans age, family caregivers, such as adult children and spouses, play a critical role in supporting the needs of this population. However, those who provide eldercare may risk their own long-term financial security if they reduce their workforce participation or pay for caregiving expenses. GAO was asked to provide information about parental and spousal caregivers and how caregiving might affect their retirement security.
This report (1) examines what is known about the size and characteristics of the parental and spousal caregiving population, including differences among women and men; (2) examines the extent to which parental or spousal caregiving affects retirement security; and (3) identifies and discusses policy options and initiatives that could improve caregivers' retirement security.
GAO analyzed data from three nationally representative surveys; conducted an extensive literature review; and interviewed experts who are knowledgeable about caregiving or retirement security, engaged in research or advocacy around caregiving, or represent groups that might be affected by the identified policy approaches."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-382?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Hardrock Mining
WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on trends in U.S. net import reliance percentages for 15 hardrock minerals from 1990 through 2017. The report (GAO-19-434R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: Trends in U.S. Reliance on Imports for Selected Minerals".The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on April 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "From 1990 through 2017, the U.S. reliance on imports of 15 hardrock ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on trends in U.S. net import reliance percentages for 15 hardrock minerals from 1990 through 2017. The report (GAO-19-434R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: Trends in U.S. Reliance on Imports for Selected Minerals". The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on April 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "From 1990 through 2017, the U.S. reliance on imports of 15 hardrockminerals--as measured by the net import reliance percentage--has varied. Net import reliance percentage is one factor in determining whether a mineral is considered to be critical, as that percentage can help identify the potential for supply disruption of a particular mineral. Based on data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), an agency within the Department of the Interior (Interior), these percentages generally increased for six of the 15 hardrock minerals (copper, magnesium compounds, magnesium metal, perlite, silver, and zinc); generally decreased for four minerals (gypsum, palladium, platinum, and tungsten); remained generally constant for two minerals (fluorspar and gold); or fluctuated with no long-term discernable trend for the remaining three minerals (barite, lead, and nickel).
GAO analysis of USGS data over this time period shows that the net import reliance percentages have averaged over 50 percent from 1990 through 2017 for eight of the 15 minerals GAO examined (barite, fluorspar, nickel, palladium, platinum, silver, tungsten, and zinc). A net import reliance percentage of 60 for a particular mineral indicates that 60 percent of apparent U.S. consumption is met through net imports--that is, imports minus exports, accounting for adjustments in domestic stocks. The remaining 40 percent of apparent U.S. consumption is met by U.S. domestic production. Although a net import reliance percentage greater than 50 percent is considered to be high, it should not always be construed to pose a potential supply risk, according to USGS officials. Specifically, if the import source for a particular mineral is a nation with whom the United States has reliable trade relations, the risk of a supply disruption is lessened.
Six of the 15 hardrock minerals included in GAO's review are on Interior's list of critical minerals to the United States: barite, fluorspar, magnesium metal, palladium, platinum, and tungsten. Of these, four (barite, fluorspar, palladium, and platinum) have average net import reliance percentages of over 50 percent for at least the last 10 years covered in GAO's review--2008 through 2017. For example, barite, which has consistently had a net import reliance percentage greater than 70 since 2000, is used in oil and gas drilling and radiation shielding, among other applications. China is the top producer and supplier of barite to the United States, according to a USGS report. In addition, the United States has relied entirely on imports of fluorspar to meet apparent consumption since 1997. Fluorspar is used to make chemicals for aluminum production, semiconductor manufacturing, and uranium processing, among other things. Mexico is the primary supplier to the United States for this mineral, although China is the leading producer of it worldwide."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Hardrock minerals play an important role in the U.S. economy, contributing to multiple industries, including transportation, defense, aerospace, electronics, energy, agriculture, construction, and health care. Over the past six decades, many of these minerals have been sourced increasingly from outside the United States, according to USGS.
USGS reports annually the United States' dependence on imports of minerals to meet domestic consumption by calculating the net import reliance as a percentage of apparent U.S. consumption, also known as the net import reliance percentage. A mineral's net import reliance percentage equals the amount of imports minus the amount of exports of that mineral, expressed as a percentage of domestic consumption of the mineral.
This report describes trends in U.S. net import reliance percentages for 15 hardrock minerals from 1990 through 2017--the most recently available data at the time of GAO's review. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed USGS's net import reliance percentage data for the following 15 hardrock minerals from 1990 through 2017: barite, copper, fluorspar, gold, gypsum, lead, magnesium compounds, magnesium metal, nickel, palladium, perlite, platinum, silver, tungsten, and zinc. To examine trends, GAO analyzed USGS data to determine which hardrock minerals had net import reliance percentages that generally increased, generally decreased, remained generally constant, or fluctuated with no long-term discernable trend. GAO also interviewed USGS officials about their perspectives on the context for and implications of trends."
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-19-434R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military Justice
WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on racial and gender disparities in the military justice system. The report (GAO-19-344) is titled "Military Justice: DOD and the Coast Guard Need to Improve Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities".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 May 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The military services collect gender information, but they do ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on racial and gender disparities in the military justice system. The report (GAO-19-344) is titled "Military Justice: DOD and the Coast Guard Need to Improve Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities". 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 May 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The military services collect gender information, but they donot collect and maintain consistent information about race and ethnicity in their investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. This limits their ability to collectively or comparatively assess these data to identify any disparities (i.e., instances in which a racial, ethnic, or gender group was overrepresented) in the military justice system within and across the services. For example, the number of potential responses for race and ethnicity across the military services' databases ranges from five to 32 options for race and two to 25 options for ethnicity, which can complicate cross-service assessments. The services also are not required to and, thus, do not report demographic information in their annual military justice reports--information that would provide greater visibility into potential disparities.
GAO's analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process. The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken some steps to study disparities, but has not comprehensively evaluated the causes of racial or gender disparities in the military justice system. Doing so would better position DOD to identify actions to address disparities and help ensure the military justice system is fair and just.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-344?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Note: These analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions about the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination. These multivariate regression analysis results estimate whether a racial or gender group is more likely or less likely to be the subject of an investigation or a trial in general or special courts-martial after controlling for race, gender, rank, and education, and in the Air Force, years of service. GAO made all racial comparisons to White servicemembers and all gender comparisons to females. GAO grouped individuals of Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of race."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was established to provide a statutory framework that promotes fair administration of military justice. Every active-duty servicemember is subject to the UCMJ, with more than 258,000 individuals disciplined from fiscal years 2013-2017, out of more than 2.3 million unique active-duty servicemembers. A key principle of the UCMJ is that a fair and just system of military law can foster a highly disciplined force.
House Report 115-200, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, included a provision for GAO to assess the extent that disparities may exist in the military justice system. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the military services collect and maintain consistent race, ethnicity, and gender information for servicemembers investigated and disciplined for UCMJ violations that can be used to assess disparities, and (2) there are racial and gender disparities in the military justice system, and whether disparities have been studied by DOD. GAO analyzed data from the investigations, military justice, and personnel databases from the military services, including the Coast Guard, from fiscal years 2013-2017 and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 11 recommendations, including that the services develop the capability to present consistent race and ethnicity data, and DOD include demographic information in military justice annual reports and evaluates the causes of disparities in the military justice system. DOD and the Coast Guard generally concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-344?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on NASA Assessments of Major Projects
WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects and activities. The report (GAO-19-262SP) is titled "NASA: Assessments of Major Projects".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, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Arizona, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Aviation and Space, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects and activities. The report (GAO-19-262SP) is titled "NASA: Assessments of Major Projects". 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, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Arizona, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee on Aviation and Space, Rep.Jose Serrano, D-New York, chairman, Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Rep. Kendra Horn, D-Oklahoma, chairwoman, and Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, on May 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The cost and schedule performance of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) portfolio of major projects continues to deteriorate. For this review, cost growth was 27.6 percent over the baselines and the average launch delay was approximately 13 months, the largest schedule delay since GAO began annual reporting on NASA's major projects in 2009. See figure.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-262SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
This deterioration in cost and schedule performance is largely due to integration and test challenges on the James Webb Space Telescope (see GAO-19-189 for more information). The Space Launch System program also experienced significant cost growth due to continued production challenges. Further, additional delays are likely for the Space Launch System and its associated ground systems. Senior NASA officials stated that it is unlikely these programs will meet the launch date of June 2020, which already reflects 19 months of delays. These officials told GAO that there are 6 to 12 months of risk associated with that launch date.
GAO found some subjectivity in the processes NASA uses to identify and assess critical technologies--those that are required for the project to successfully meet customer requirements--which could understate the development risk that its major projects face. The average number of critical technologies NASA reported increased slightly in 2019, but remains low compared to historical data. However, GAO found inconsistencies in how projects identify critical technologies. For example, the Lucy project determined that operating its solar array in a previously unexplored environment did not warrant identifying it as a critical technology, while the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) project did identify a technology as critical because of its use in a new environment. NASA is planning to clarify its guidance on technology readiness, among other measures. GAO will continue to monitor NASA's efforts in this area."
Why GAO Did This Study: "This report provides GAO's annual snapshot of how well NASA is planning and executing its major acquisition projects. GAO previously found that, as of February 2018, the cost and schedule performance of major projects was deteriorating, with 9 of 17 projects in development reporting cost or schedule growth. GAO also found that NASA was likely to continue to see cost and schedule growth, as new, large projects were entering the portfolio while others were taking longer to launch than planned.
The explanatory statement of the House Committee on Appropriations accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 included a provision for GAO to prepare status reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, and activities. This is GAO's 11th annual assessment. This report assesses (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA's major projects and (2) the maturity of critical technologies, among other issues. This report also includes assessments of 21 of NASA's 24 major projects, each with a life-cycle cost of over $250 million using 2018 data. This report does not assess what effect, if any, the government shutdown that ended in January 2019 had on performance. To conduct its review, GAO analyzed cost, schedule, technology maturity, and other data; reviewed project status reports; and interviewed NASA officials."
What GAO Recommends: "In prior reports, GAO has made related recommendations that NASA generally agreed with; 14 of these are not yet fully addressed. NASA generally agreed with the findings in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-262SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Child Care
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Child Care and Development Fund. The report (GAO-19-261) is titled "Child Care: States Report Child Care and Development Funds Benefit All Children in Care".The report was sent to Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, on April 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "A majority of states used funding from ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Child Care and Development Fund. The report (GAO-19-261) is titled "Child Care: States Report Child Care and Development Funds Benefit All Children in Care". The report was sent to Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, on April 25. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "A majority of states used funding fromthe Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) in fiscal year 2017 to entirely or mostly support 7 of 10 major state child care activities GAO identified in its survey of 51 state CCDF programs. These activities, components of which are also required by CCDF, represent diverse aspects of state child care systems and are a key means through which states may choose to improve the quality of their child care. States reported that they relied primarily on CCDF funding for child care resource and referral systems, consumer education, and health and safety standards establishment and training more frequently than for other activities.
States reported in GAO's survey that a range of CCDF quality activities affect the care of children not receiving CCDF subsidies (nonsubsidized children), including three activities cited by all states--consumer education, child care licensing, and professional development of the child care workforce. CCDF administrators in most of the 15 states GAO interviewed said they have elected to apply certain requirements for caregivers subsidized under CCDF to all state licensed child care providers. For example, child care providers may be subject to monitoring and professional development requirements, whether or not they care for children receiving subsidies. CCDF administrators also stated that, as a result, all children in the care of licensed providers in these states--including nonsubsidized children--benefit from the enhanced requirements.
States most often reported in GAO's survey that they plan to spend new CCDF funds provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, on quality activities that benefit all children in child care including licensing, consumer education, and professional development. For example, officials GAO interviewed in several states described plans to enhance public state child care websites to make them more user-friendly for all families or available in other languages, such as Spanish. However, more than a third of the interviewed states said their spending plans were still in flux, and more than half said they faced challenges making spending decisions because it was unclear whether the new funds would be provided in the future."
Why GAO Did This Study: "CCDF is the primary source of federal funding for child care subsidies. States administering CCDF are subject to requirements that improve the quality of child care for all children, nonsubsidized as well as subsidized. In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 was enacted, which provided $5.2 billion in additional CCDF discretionary funding for fiscal year 2018, approximately twice the amount provided in fiscal year 2017. GAO was asked to review state use of CCDF funds and their potential impact on nonsubsidized children.
GAO examined (1) the extent to which states use CCDF funds to support their child care system, (2) the kinds of CCDF-related activities states engage in that affect children who are not receiving CCDF subsidies, and (3) how states plan to use the increase in CCDF funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. GAO collected information from state CCDF administrators through a survey to the 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) and interviews with officials in 15 states, including D.C., selected to reflect diverse characteristics and locations. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance, and interviewed Department of Health and Human Services officials.
GAO makes no recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-261?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Advanced Manufacturing
WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Manufacturing USA program. The report (GAO-19-409) is titled "Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Have Demonstrated Initial Accomplishments, but Challenges Remain in Measuring Performance and Ensuring Sustainability".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, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Manufacturing USA program. The report (GAO-19-409) is titled "Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Have Demonstrated Initial Accomplishments, but Challenges Remain in Measuring Performance and Ensuring Sustainability". 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, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, rankingmember of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-New York, chairman, Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, chairman, and Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Oklahoma, ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, on May 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since December 2016, the Manufacturing USA network has grown from 11 to 14 manufacturing innovation institutes that are implementing a wide array of activities aimed at developing manufacturing capabilities in promising new advanced technologies, as shown in the figure. As of March 2019, most institutes were operating under an initial 5- to 7-year period of federal financial assistance.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-409?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Department of Commerce, through a national program office, along with the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) have developed long-term goals for the Manufacturing USA program, such as increasing the competitiveness of U.S manufacturing, but have not developed measurable near-term goals with associated targets and time frames to assess progress over time. Prior GAO work has shown that systems of performance measures benefit from certain key practices, such as creating a hierarchy that breaks down broad, long-term goals and objectives into more specific, near-term performance goals with measurable targets and time frames. Commerce officials said that they are not in a position to set targets for the network-wide performance measures because they do not manage or fund individual institute activities. However, by developing and implementing network-wide performance goals with targets and time frames, Commerce would have better assurance that it could observe and report on progress toward Manufacturing USA long-term goals and objectives.
Commerce, DOD, and DOE have taken steps to support their institutes' sustainability planning for the years after the initial 5- to 7-year period of federal financial assistance. All 14 institutes have conducted various levels of sustainability planning and foresee generally negative impacts if baseline federal financial assistance ends, such as the need to focus more on short-term projects for industry use rather than projects that advance the manufacturing innovation ecosystem as a whole. However, as of February 2019, while the agencies had taken steps to support institute sustainability planning, they had not developed criteria to evaluate whether the institutes will be able to sustain their operations. Developing criteria for evaluating institutes' progress toward sustainability would provide Commerce, DOD, and DOE greater assurance that decisions about providing additional federal financial assistance for the institutes will be based on an analysis of the risks the institutes face in successfully carrying out the statutory purposes for the Manufacturing USA program."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Manufacturing USA is a national network of manufacturing innovation institutes. Commerce, DOD, and DOE have together provided $1 billion to establish the network's institutes and to promote research, development, and commercialization of advanced manufacturing technologies.
The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 includes a provision for GAO to assess the Manufacturing USA program. This is GAO's second report in response to the provision. Among other objectives, this report (1) describes the status of the Manufacturing USA network; (2) evaluates actions taken by Commerce, DOD, and DOE to assess progress of the Manufacturing USA program; and (3) examines planning for institute sustainability beyond the initial 5 to 7 years of federal financial assistance.
GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed agency and Manufacturing USA institute officials, as well as a nongeneralizable sample of seven institute members from different-sized companies and academia."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that Commerce work with DOD and DOE to develop performance goals with measurable targets and time frames, and the three agencies develop criteria to evaluate their institutes' sustainability. Commerce requested changes to the performance goals recommendations that would have altered their scope and intent. GAO maintains the recommendations are valid as stated. The three agencies generally agreed with the criteria development recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-409?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Commercial Space Transportation
WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Aviation Administration's actions to integrate commercial space launches into the national airspace. The report (GAO-19-437) is titled "Commercial Space Transportation: Improvements to FAA's Workforce Planning Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated Growth".The report was sent to Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Washington, chairman of the House Transportation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Aviation Administration's actions to integrate commercial space launches into the national airspace. The report (GAO-19-437) is titled "Commercial Space Transportation: Improvements to FAA's Workforce Planning Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated Growth". The report was sent to Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Washington, chairman of the House Transportationand Infrastructure subcommittee on Aviation, on May 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in collaboration with other FAA offices, is taking a range of actions, such as testing new technologies, to improve how efficiently FAA integrates space vehicle launch operations into the national airspace. According to FAA officials, the amount of airspace that FAA closes to other airspace users is larger and remains closed longer than may be needed to ensure public safety. To help remedy this situation, FAA is piloting prototype technologies that would collect launch vehicles' location data in real-time and transmit them to air traffic controllers. Officials said the earliest these technologies could be implemented would be 2022. In March 2019, FAA published an announcement seeking interest from industry on partnering with FAA to further develop the technologies. Meanwhile, FAA is assessing how existing air traffic control technologies could be used to help reduce the effects of launches on other airspace users.
Since 2016, AST has taken steps to improve how it determines its current workforce needs to carry out its mission including licensing commercial launch vehicle operations. These steps include more comprehensively monitoring staff time spent on specific activities and measuring the volume of the staff's work. While AST officials told us that AST is planning to continue to improve its workforce-planning efforts, GAO found that some aspects of AST's efforts fall short of key principles of strategic workforce planning. Such principles underscore the importance of determining both current and future workforce needs and identifying potential gaps in employee skills. For example:
AST does not project its workload beyond a 2-year budget cycle, limiting its ability to effectively and strategically plan for its longer-term workforce needs. According to officials, it can take a few years for engineers with certain skills to be trained and have sufficient experience to lead projects. Further, AST officials told GAO that hiring technically qualified personnel, including positions that require considerable training and experience to be a fully functioning employee, is challenging. AST officials said that they are considering projecting their workload estimates further into the future, but they have neither formally committed to doing so nor established a timeline with milestones.
AST officials acknowledged that the information AST currently collects on the skills of its staff is not sufficient to allow them to identify gaps between the skills and competencies needed and those that its workforce currently possesses or may need in the future, such as expertise in flight safety analysis. AST officials told GAO that they plan to develop a tool that could collect information annually from staff and managers about the specific skills and competencies that individual staff currently possess. As of May 2019, however, AST had neither developed a draft of the tool nor established a timeline for finalizing it. Without this information, AST lacks reasonable assurance that its current workforce possesses the requisite skills and competencies, and AST may not be best positioned to proactively determine how to align its staff to carry out its mission."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The commercial space transportation industry provides launch services that enable national-security and commercial satellites, among other things, to be sent into orbit for government and private customers. Continued growth and evolution in the industry is expected as reliance on space-based applications increases. AST is charged with overseeing the industry, including licensing and monitoring launch vehicle operations.
GAO was asked to review developments in this industry. This report (1) describes FAA's actions to integrate commercial space launches into the national airspace and (2) examines how well-positioned AST is to determine its current and future workforce needs, among other objectives. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and FAA guidance; compared FAA's workforce management efforts to key principles for effective workforce planning; and interviewed FAA officials and U.S. commercial launch providers that had conducted an FAA-licensed launch as of January 2018, among other industry stakeholders."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations on workforce planning to AST, including that AST establish a timeline for finalizing longer-term workload projections and that AST ensure that it collects information from staff on skills and competencies in those areas that are currently needed and may be needed in the future. AST concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-437?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Ex-Im Bank
WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Export-Import Bank's antifraud controls. The report (GAO-19-337) is titled "Export-Import Bank: EXIM Should Explore Using Available Data to Identify Applicants with Delinquent Federal Debt".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. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Export-Import Bank's antifraud controls. The report (GAO-19-337) is titled "Export-Import Bank: EXIM Should Explore Using Available Data to Identify Applicants with Delinquent Federal Debt". 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. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on State, ForeignOperations, and Related Programs, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-New York, chairwoman, and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on May 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) reported having antifraud controls in place for mitigating the fraud risks that GAO identified and communicated to EXIM officials. GAO reviewed 44 EXIM-associated court cases involving fraud and identified fraud risks involving the four fraud risk factors illustrated in the figure below. GAO communicated these fraud risks to EXIM officials, and they provided examples of antifraud controls they use to help mitigate these fraud risks for their major financing products. In February 2019, EXIM also provided documentation reflecting its efforts to conduct a fraud risk assessment that considered various fraud risks affecting its major financing product lines, including fraud risks GAO identified during this review.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-337?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
EXIM has procedures to identify applicants and participants with delinquent federal debt, such as obtaining applicants' credit reports that may indicate these debts when they apply to EXIM's financing programs. However, EXIM is missing additional opportunities to use readily available data containing delinquent federal debt indicators from the General Services Administration's (GSA) System for Award Management (SAM) to detect applicants and participants that may have delinquent federal debt. Federal law states that applicants who are delinquent on federal nontax debts may not receive federal direct loans, loan guarantees, or loan insurance until the delinquent debt is satisfactorily resolved. Using data from SAM, GAO found that, from calendar years 2014 through 2016, EXIM authorized transactions that had an aggregate authorization value of about $1.7 billion and were associated with 32 U.S.-based companies that had a delinquent federal debt indicator in SAM in the same month EXIM authorized these transactions . While these results alone do not mean EXIM should have suspended these transactions, they do indicate that there is a practical opportunity to use SAM data to help determine applicants' eligibility. Without assessing the practicality of pursuing such readily available data, EXIM is potentially forgoing opportunities to perform additional due diligence that would help inform its decisions about applicants' and participants' program eligibility and fraud risks."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As the export credit agency of the United States, EXIM's mission is to help support U.S. jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services through direct loans, loan guarantees, working capital guarantees, and credit insurance. In September 2018, the total outstanding and undisbursed amount of these products and unrecovered default claims was about $60.5 billion, according to EXIM.
The Export-Import Bank Reform Reauthorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review EXIM's antifraud controls. This report (1) describes key antifraud controls EXIM says it has for mitigating fraud risks identified by GAO, and describes EXIM's efforts to perform a fraud risk assessment that considers these fraud risks; and (2) identifies EXIM's procedures to detect delinquent federal debt owed by applicants and participants, and assesses additional opportunities to use readily available data to do so. GAO analyzed 44 EXIM-associated court cases of fraud adjudicated from calendar years 2012 through 2017, examined EXIM transaction data, and interviewed EXIM and GSA officials. GAO also analyzed data identifying delinquent federal debt as well as EXIM's procedures for doing so."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is recommending that EXIM assess the practicality of using available SAM data and data-analytical approaches to detect applicants and participants with potential delinquent federal debt. EXIM concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-337?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Private Student Loans
WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation and effects of private student loan rehabilitation programs. The report (GAO-19-430) is titled "Private Student Loans: Clarification from CFPB Could Help Ensure More Consistent Opportunities and Treatment for Borrowers".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. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation and effects of private student loan rehabilitation programs. The report (GAO-19-430) is titled "Private Student Loans: Clarification from CFPB Could Help Ensure More Consistent Opportunities and Treatment for Borrowers". 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. 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. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, on May 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The five largest banks that provide private student loans--student loans that are not guaranteed by the federal government--told GAO that they do not offer private student loan rehabilitation programs because few private student loan borrowers are in default, and because they already offer existing repayment programs to assist distressed borrowers. (Loan rehabilitation programs described in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) enable financial institutions to remove reported defaults from credit reports after borrowers make a number of consecutive, on-time payments.) Some nonbank private student loan lenders offer rehabilitation programs, but others do not, because they believe the Act does not authorize them to do so. Clarification of this matter by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)--which oversees credit reporting and nonbank lenders--could enable more borrowers to participate in these programs or ensure that only eligible entities offer them.
Private student loan rehabilitation programs are expected to pose minimal additional risks to financial institutions. Private student loans compose a small portion of most banks' portfolios and have consistently low default rates. Banks mitigate credit risks by requiring cosigners for almost all private student loans. Rehabilitation programs are also unlikely to affect financial institutions' ability to make sound lending decisions, in part because the programs leave some derogatory credit information--such as delinquencies leading to the default--in the credit reports.
Borrowers completing private student loan rehabilitation programs would likely experience minimal improvement in their access to credit. Removing a student loan default from a credit profile would increase the borrower's credit score by only about 8 points, on average, according to a simulation that a credit scoring firm conducted for GAO. The effect of removing the default was greater for borrowers with lower credit scores and smaller for borrowers with higher credit scores (see figure). Reasons that removing a student loan default could have little effect on a credit score include that the delinquencies leading to that default--which also negatively affect credit scores--remain in the credit report and borrowers in default may already have poor credit."
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-430?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act enabled lenders to offer a rehabilitation program to private student loan borrowers who have a reported default on their credit report. The lender may remove the reported default from credit reports if the borrower meets certain conditions. Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the implementation and effects of these programs.
This report examines (1) the factors affecting financial institutions' participation in private student loan rehabilitation programs, (2) the risks the programs may pose to financial institutions, and (3) the effects the programs may have on student loan borrowers' access to credit. GAO reviewed applicable statutes and agency guidance. GAO also asked a credit scoring firm to simulate the effect on borrowers' credit scores of removing student loan defaults. GAO also interviewed representatives of regulators, some of the largest private student loan lenders, other credit providers, credit bureaus, credit scoring firms, and industry and consumer advocacy organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations, including that CFPB provide written clarification to nonbank private student loan lenders on their authority to offer private student loan rehabilitation programs. CFPB does not plan to take action on this recommendation and stated that it was premature to take action on the second recommendation. GAO maintains that both recommendations are valid, as discussed in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-430?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Children Affected by Trauma
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on selected states' efforts to support children affected by trauma. The report (GAO-19-388) is titled "Children Affected by Trauma: Selected States Report Various Approaches and Challenges to Supporting Children".The report was sent to Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, on April 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Health and Human Services ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on selected states' efforts to support children affected by trauma. The report (GAO-19-388) is titled "Children Affected by Trauma: Selected States Report Various Approaches and Challenges to Supporting Children". The report was sent to Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Illinois, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, on April 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) and the Department of Education (Education) provide grants, disseminate information, and fund training and technical assistance to help state and local agencies support children affected by trauma. HHS's Administration for Children and Families and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have awarded discretionary grants specifically to address childhood trauma. In addition, state and local officials reported making use of other discretionary grants from HHS and Education--as well as formula funds meant for broad purposes like mental health, substance abuse, child welfare, and education--to support their work with children affected by trauma. In terms of non-financial support, state and local officials in six selected states all referred to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, which is funded by SAMHSA, as an important resource for information, training, and technical assistance. Both HHS and Education have also made other guidance and informational resources available to states.
Officials in child welfare and education agencies in the six selected states reported using a range of approaches to help children affected by trauma, including training staff, screening children, and providing services and support systems. To train child welfare workers, educators, and birth and foster parents to understand trauma and its effects on children, agencies in the six selected states used various approaches, such as learning communities, which include in-person learning and coaching, and online courses. Several state child welfare agencies also used learning communities to train clinicians in trauma-focused therapies. In addition, child welfare and education agencies in five states used screening tools to identify children exposed to and exhibiting symptoms of trauma. Children identified as experiencing trauma are referred for a trauma-informed mental health assessment. Also, to help children affected by trauma, child welfare and education agencies in five of the six states provide support and services. For example, in one state, caseworkers provide specialized services, including weekly visits, to children and families.
Officials in the six selected states reported facing various challenges in their efforts to support children affected by trauma, and they emphasized the importance of engaged leadership in establishing and sustaining support for these children. In three states, officials said that a lack of such leadership hindered their efforts, and they described cases that included delayed, incomplete, or unsuccessful implementation of initiatives. Officials in all six states also talked about limitations on their agency's capacity to support children affected by trauma, including:
- high rates of staff turnover, especially in child welfare;
- limited staff time to dedicate to trauma initiatives;
- lack of clinicians trained in trauma-focused therapies; and
- insufficient funding to support trauma initiatives.
Officials in some states reported strategies they have used to help address these challenges, including providing additional support to employees and coordinating with partner agencies to jointly leverage resources, expertise, and data."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Trauma is a widespread, harmful, and costly public health problem, and its effects are especially detrimental to children. Any frightening, dangerous, or violent event that threatens a child or their loved ones can potentially be traumatic. While not every child who experiences trauma will suffer lasting effects, trauma significantly increases the risk of mental health problems, difficulties with social relationships and behavior, physical illness, and poor school performance. GAO was asked to review selected states' efforts to support children affected by trauma.
This report describes (1) the assistance that HHS and Education provide to help state and local agencies support children affected by trauma; (2) how child welfare and education agencies in selected states support these children; and (3) the challenges these agencies have faced in selected states in supporting these children.
GAO interviewed state and local officials in six states that were selected based on recommendations from subject-matter experts and federal officials, among other factors; administered a questionnaire to 16 state agencies in the selected states; interviewed federal officials from HHS and Education; and reviewed relevant federal, state, and local agency documents, such as reports and guidance. Although our findings cannot be generalized to all states, they provide insight into government support for children affected by trauma.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-388?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Congressional Award Foundation
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Congressional Award Foundation's fiscal 2018 financial statement audit. The report (GAO-19-472R) is titled "Congressional Award Foundation: Review of the Audit of the Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2018".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. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Congressional Award Foundation's fiscal 2018 financial statement audit. The report (GAO-19-472R) is titled "Congressional Award Foundation: Review of the Audit of the Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2018". 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. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education andLabor Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on May 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Based on the limited procedures GAO performed in reviewing the independent public accountant's (IPA) audit of the Congressional Award Foundation's (Foundation) fiscal year 2018 financial statements, GAO did not identify any significant issues 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 the Foundation's fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements. Specifically, the IPA found that the Foundation'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 (1) deficiencies in the Foundation's internal control over financial reporting that the IPA considered to be material weaknesses or (2) instances of reportable noncompliance or other matters as a result of its tests of the Foundation's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. The Foundation concurred with the IPA's conclusions.
GAO provided a draft of its report to the Foundation and the IPA for review and comment. The Foundation's National Director and the Congressional Award Board's Audit Committee Chair stated in an email that the Foundation was pleased that GAO found no significant issues related to the IPA's audit of the Foundation's fiscal year 2018 financial statements. In addition, the IPA's Audit Manager stated in an email that the IPA had no comments on the draft report."
Why GAO Did This Study: "This report presents the results of GAO's review of the Foundation's fiscal year 2018 financial statement audit. The Congressional Award Act (Act) established the Congressional Award Board to carry out a program to promote excellence among the nation's youth in the areas of public service, personal development, physical fitness, and expedition or exploration. The Congressional Award Board created the Foundation as a nonprofit corporation to assist in carrying out this program. The Act, as amended by the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014, requires the Foundation to obtain an annual financial statement audit from an IPA. The Act also requires the Comptroller General of the United States to annually review the audit and report the results to the Congress. GAO's objective was to review the audit of the Foundation's fiscal year 2018 financial statements. To satisfy this objective, GAO performed the following procedures: (1) read and considered various documents with respect to the IPA's independence, objectivity, and qualifications; (2) analyzed key IPA audit documentation; (3) read the Foundation's fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements, the IPA's audit report on the Foundation's financial statements, and the IPA's report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on its audit; and (4) met with IPA representatives and Foundation management officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-472R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Global Positioning System
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the next generation Global Positioning System acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-250) is titled "Global Positioning System: Updated Schedule Assessment Could Help Decision Makers Address Likely Delays Related to New Ground Control System".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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the next generation Global Positioning System acquisition programs. The report (GAO-19-250) is titled "Global Positioning System: Updated Schedule Assessment Could Help Decision Makers Address Likely Delays Related to New Ground Control System". 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 Appropriationssubcommittee 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 May 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Global Positioning System's (GPS) next generation operational control system's (OCX) program schedule continues to be optimistic and, with significant development remaining, more delays are likely for delivery, acceptance, and operation. See the figure below for previous delays, cost growth, and the current baseline.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-250?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Completing the full OCX program schedule requires (1) timely delivery by the contractor and acceptance by the Air Force and (2) an efficient completion of a planned 7-month government-run post-acceptance developmental testing. GAO found that there is potential for significant delays on both fronts. While there has been some improvement to the pace of software development, the rollout of the new development methodology has been delayed to a point where most of the contractor's schedule reserve has been used. Assumed improvements in how long it takes to repair software defects has not occurred as planned, placing additional pressure on the contractor's delivery date. Additionally, Air Force officials have acknowledged that the government developmental test period after acceptance could double in duration and delay operations further because of concurrency, test plan uncertainty, and risks of late discovery of problems.
With approximately 2 years of work remaining before delivery, there is no plan to have the full schedule independently assessed. For complex programs, such as OCX, best practices state an independent view is necessary and that a periodic schedule assessment should be performed as progress is made and risks change. Such an assessment would help inform congressional and DOD decision makers as they consider what steps may be taken to address delays to the start of OCX operations and ensure the investments in needed new receivers are properly aligned."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The U.S. military and the public depend daily on GPS data. OCX, the ground system that will command and control next generation GPS satellites, is one of several interdependent systems the Air Force is developing to modernize GPS. OCX has been hampered by delays and $2.5 billion in cost growth since the program started in 2012. The Air Force set a new baseline for cost and schedule in 2018 after OCX breached its cost threshold in 2016.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 contained a provision that the Air Force provide quarterly reports to GAO on the next generation GPS acquisition programs, and a provision that GAO brief the defense committees as needed. GAO provided numerous briefings from 2016 through 2018 and issued reports in 2016 and 2017. Continuing this body of work, this report focuses on the extent to which schedule risks may affect OCX delivery, acceptance, and approval for operation.
GAO reviewed the Air Force's baseline review results, schedule risks, and progress, and applied selected best practices for cost and schedule management. GAO also reviewed OCX monthly management briefings and quarterly assessments, and interviewed officials from the OCX program office and Raytheon (the prime contractor), among others."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD conduct an independent schedule assessment of the full program schedule at the end of 2019. DOD did not concur with the recommendation. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-250?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Prescription Opioids
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare's drug management programs. The report (GAO-19-446) is titled "Prescription Opioids: Voluntary Medicare Drug Management Programs to Control Misuse".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. 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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare's drug management programs. The report (GAO-19-446) is titled "Prescription Opioids: Voluntary Medicare Drug Management Programs to Control Misuse". 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. 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 memberof the House Ways and Means Committee, on May 20. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Medicare's drug management programs (DMP) identify beneficiaries at risk of opioid misuse or abuse, and attempt to mitigate that risk through the use of case management and coverage limitations. DMPs are overseen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and voluntarily implemented by Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors (private health plans). CMS established a two-step framework for identifying at-risk beneficiaries under DMPs. First, CMS identifies potentially at-risk beneficiaries based on key factors, such as beneficiaries' daily dosage of opioids and the number of prescribers and pharmacies from which they receive opioids, with higher numbers possibly putting the beneficiary at more risk. Second, Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors' clinicians coordinate the provision of care among prescribers and pharmacists (referred to as case management) to determine if those potentially at-risk beneficiaries are actually at risk. If a patient is deemed to be at risk, coverage limitation tools--such as limiting a beneficiary to a selected prescriber or pharmacy, and implementing point-of-sale restrictions on certain drugs or amounts--can be used to limit the at-risk beneficiary's access to opioids. Beneficiaries have an opportunity to appeal an at-risk designation. None of the five plan sponsors GAO interviewed expressed concerns about beneficiaries not receiving clinically appropriate doses of opioids under the Medicare DMPs.
Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors and other stakeholders GAO interviewed reported several factors beyond the case management process that could contribute to the success of DMPs. These factors included communication among sponsors, opioid prescribers, and pharmacies dispensing opioids to reduce potential resistance to participating in DMPs by opioid prescribers or beneficiaries.
* According to plan sponsors and stakeholders, plan sponsors could communicate with stakeholders to ensure that DMPs are not viewed as a punitive tool by beneficiaries, but rather as tools for keeping them safe.
* Plan sponsors and stakeholders noted that it is important for plan sponsors to have flexibility in varying coverage limitation features to fit regional and other differences in population groups. They noted that CMS should periodically reassess and adjust the elements of the DMP program where appropriate, to incorporate evidence from the outcomes of the DMP--such as how at-risk beneficiaries are identified, or which drugs are selected as frequently abused drugs.
Finally, CMS officials told GAO that they are taking steps to assess the DMPs and gather the information required to make periodic changes to the DMP program. For example, CMS officials plan to analyze data for at-risk beneficiaries that DMPs are required to report to CMS, update their Medicare Part D audit protocol, and obtain feedback from plan sponsors about how the DMPs are working.
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: "Misuse and abuse of prescription opioids can lead to overdose and death. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 47,600 overdose deaths in the United States in 2017 involved an opioid. GAO and other federal entities have raised concerns about opioid misuse and abuse in Medicare. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) authorized CMS and Medicare plan sponsors to establish voluntary DMPs that may limit access to frequently abused prescription drugs, such as opioids, for Medicare beneficiaries who are identified as being at risk for prescription drug abuse. DMPs will become mandatory in Medicare starting in January 2022.
CARA included a provision for GAO to review DMPs under Medicare. This report: 1) describes how Medicare identifies beneficiaries at risk of opioid misuse and abuse and how it attempts to mitigate that risk; and 2) identifies the factors likely to affect the success of Medicare DMPs.
GAO reviewed CDC's Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain , CMS regulations, and other relevant CMS guidance. GAO also interviewed officials from CMS, the five largest Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors, and officials from six other stakeholder organizations representing Medicare plan sponsors, physicians (including pain specialists), pharmacy benefit managers, state Medicaid programs, and patients."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-446?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Secret Service
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress made by the Secret Service in implementing the Protective Mission Panel's recommendations. The report (GAO-19-415) is titled "U.S. Secret Service: Further Actions Needed to Fully Address Protective Mission Panel Recommendations".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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the progress made by the Secret Service in implementing the Protective Mission Panel's recommendations. The report (GAO-19-415) is titled "U.S. Secret Service: Further Actions Needed to Fully Address Protective Mission Panel Recommendations". 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, rankingmember of the Senate Judiciary 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 May 22. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Secret Service (Secret Service) has made progress implementing the 19 recommendations related to training and personnel; technology, perimeter security, and operations; and leadership made by the U.S. Secret Service Protective Mission Panel (Panel). The Secret Service fully implemented 11 of the recommendations. For example, the agency increased the number of agents and officers in the divisions that protect the President and White House and secured approval to build a new fence around the White House complex.
The Secret Service is in the process of implementing the remaining eight recommendations. The Panel found that the security incident of September 19, 2014, when an intruder jumped the north fence and entered the White House, arose from a "catastrophic failure of training." The Panel recommended, and the Secret Service agreed, that the Presidential and Vice Presidential Protective Divisions train for 25 percent of their work time. However, the Secret Service has not met this target and lacks a plan for achieving it. In fiscal year 2018, special agents assigned to these divisions trained for about 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively, of their regular work hours (see figure). In commenting on a draft of this report in May 2019, the Secret Service stated that it no longer agrees with the training target and plans to reevaluate it. Developing and implementing a plan for ensuring that the established training target is met given current and planned staffing levels would better ensure that agents assigned to the Presidential and Vice Presidential Protective Divisions are prepared to carry out Secret Service's protection priority.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-415?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
In addition, the Secret Service does not have a policy with a documented process for collecting complete and appropriate (i.e., protection-related) training hour data for Uniformed Division officers. Implementing such a policy will better position the Secret Service to assess the training data and make informed decisions about whether and how training needs are being met."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Secret Service, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for protecting the President, the Vice President, and their families, as well as the White House complex. In October 2014, following several security lapses, the Secretary of Homeland Security established the Panel, an independent panel of experts, to review White House security and other aspects of Secret Service operations.
The Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act of 2018 contains a provision for GAO to report on the progress made by the Secret Service in implementing the Panel's recommendations. This report addresses the extent to which the Secret Service has implemented the recommendations in the Panel's 2014 report. GAO reviewed Secret Service documents, analyzed agency training and labor-distribution data from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, and interviewed agency officials and Panel members."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making recommendations to the Secret Service: (1) develop and implement a plan to ensure that special agents assigned to the Presidential and Vice Presidential Protective Divisions reach annual training targets, and (2) develop and implement a policy that documents the process for collecting complete and appropriate data on Uniformed Division officer training. DHS concurred with the two recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-415?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tribal Energy
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which General Services Administration, the Departments of Defense and the Energy Department have used the tribal energy preference. The report (GAO-19-359) is titled "Tribal Energy: Opportunities Exist to Increase Federal Agencies' Use of the Tribal Preference Authority".The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "None of the three primary federal ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which General Services Administration, the Departments of Defense and the Energy Department have used the tribal energy preference. The report (GAO-19-359) is titled "Tribal Energy: Opportunities Exist to Increase Federal Agencies' Use of the Tribal Preference Authority". The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "None of the three primary federalagencies with authority to enter into energy contracts--the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE)--have used the tribal energy preference since it was established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05). The section of the act that includes the preference provides federal agencies with mechanisms that can support development and use of tribal energy resources. The mechanisms include grants to assist tribes in developing their energy resources and authorization for agencies to give preference to majority tribally owned sources in federal energy purchases, so long as they pay no more than prevailing market prices and obtain no less than prevailing market rate terms and conditions. According to DOE, tribal lands account for 2 percent of U.S. land but contain about 6.5 percent of all utility-scale U.S. renewable energy potential.
GSA, DOD, and DOE officials identified five instances in the past when a tribe bid for a federal energy contract, and the agencies did not use the preference in any of those instances. GSA awarded a contract to tribes in two of the instances. In the first instance, the tribe submitted the best bid. In the second, GSA officials attempted to use the preference by limiting the energy contract solicitation solely to tribal sources, according to a stakeholder that worked on the project, but the GSA Administrator expressed concern about limiting competition in that manner. GSA instead used the small business preference authority, through which the tribe ultimately won the contract. DOD and DOE received the other three bids, which did not lead to contracts because either the cost was too high or the bid was not needed by the agency, according to agency officials. Federal officials noted that use of the preference is discretionary. EPACT05, which says agencies "may give preference," does not require use of the preference, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation does not specifically address the preference.
In November 2016, GAO reported that one reason federal agency officials cited for not using the preference was uncertainty about how to do so. GAO recommended that GSA develop guidance to clarify use of the preference across the federal government. GSA agreed that such guidance would be beneficial but stated that the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is the regulatory body empowered to address this issue. In April 2017, GSA presented the council with a business case on the issue. However, GSA officials told GAO that the council determined that the preference has limited application government-wide because it mainly affects GSA, DOD, and DOE, and that, accordingly, the council declined to issue regulations and recommended GSA consider nonregulatory paths. GSA then added the preference language to the form it will use if it delegates purchasing authority in the future.
In 2018, federal agency officials told GAO they were uncertain how to use the preference. According to GSA and DOD officials, other statutes that authorize agencies to apply preferences for acquisition of goods and services from specific sources include more specific requirements in their statutory language, making them easier to apply. GSA officials noted that the Small Business Act, as amended, contains specific requirements and measurable goals that increase contracts awarded to small businesses. DOD officials stated that the agency might use the tribal energy preference if EPACT05 had similar requirements."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Tribal lands hold considerable energy resources--oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Tribal energy projects can help tribes fund programs and services that improve tribal members' quality of life. Federal agencies are large consumers of energy in the United States, spending about $6 billion in 2017 on energy for their facilities. Congress has provided a mechanism for agencies to support development and use of tribal energy by authorizing agencies to give preference to majority tribally owned suppliers when purchasing energy. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to use the preference.
This report examines, among other objectives, the extent to which GSA, DOD, and DOE have used the tribal energy preference. GAO reviewed available agency information on use of the preference and interviewed federal agency officials to understand how agencies would use the preference when entering into contracts with tribal suppliers."
What GAO Recommends: "To the extent that Congress wants to further encourage use of tribally owned energy sources, it should consider amending EPACT05 to provide more specific direction to federal agencies for implementing the tribal energy preference, to include consideration of additional incentives or requirements."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-359?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Defense Management
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on aspects of the Department of Defense Corrosion Office. The report (GAO-19-513) is titled "Defense Management: Observations on Changes to the Reporting Structure for DOD's Corrosion Office and Its Implementation of GAO Recommendations".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on aspects of the Department of Defense Corrosion Office. The report (GAO-19-513) is titled "Defense Management: Observations on Changes to the Reporting Structure for DOD's Corrosion Office and Its Implementation of GAO Recommendations". 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 May 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) relocated the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (Corrosion Office) within the restructured acquisition and sustainment organization in fiscal year 2018. Prior to the restructure, the Corrosion Office reported directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. As part of the restructure, DOD relocated the Corrosion Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, where it reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness. It continues to perform its statutory roles and responsibilities under the new oversight organization. For instance, it is continuing to:
- develop and recommend corrosion policy guidance;
- develop and implement a long-term strategy to reduce corrosion;
- review corrosion programs and funding levels proposed by the military departments, and submit related recommendations to the Secretary of Defense; and
- monitor and ensure that corrosion prevention and mitigation are incorporated into acquisition and maintenance processes.
DOD is also making or planning changes to the operation of the Corrosion Office, specifically planning to increase corrosion advocacy throughout DOD, oversight of the Corrosion Office, corrosion accountability of the military departments, and corrosion transparency and its alignment with materiel readiness.
DOD's Corrosion Office has taken or planned actions to implement most recommendations GAO made in calendar years 2003 through 2018 related to corrosion management. Specifically, GAO made 35 recommendations to the Corrosion Office in 11 corrosion-related products on topics such as strategic planning, performance management, and mandatory oversight reports. In comments on these products, DOD concurred with 16 of those recommendations, partially concurred with eight, and non-concurred with 11. As of March 2019, DOD had taken action or planned to take action on most of GAO's prior recommendations (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-513?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Specifically, DOD's Corrosion Office had taken action on 18 recommendations. Corrosion Office officials also described to GAO their plans to take action to implement 12 additional recommendations. These planned actions include, among other actions, updating existing guidance and developing new policy or processes. DOD stated that the Corrosion Office does not plan to take action on the remaining five recommendations. GAO continues to believe that its recommendations are valid."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Corrosion negatively affects DOD equipment and infrastructure and can lead to reduced asset availability, deterioration in performance, and increasing weapon system and infrastructure costs. According to a study contracted by DOD, the cost impact of corrosion to DOD in fiscal year 2016 was $20.6 billion.
Senate Armed Services Committee Report 115-262 accompanying a bill for the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to review aspects of the DOD Corrosion Office. This report examines (1) how the restructuring within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has affected DOD's Corrosion Office, including its performance of its statutory roles and responsibilities; and (2) what actions, if any, DOD has taken or has planned to implement recommendations GAO made from calendar years 2003 through 2018 related to corrosion management.
GAO analyzed DOD documents, such as guidance and required reports provided to Congress, and interviewed DOD officials to address these objectives. GAO also assessed DOD's actions against its prior recommendations to determine the extent to which DOD had addressed the recommendations or has actions underway to address those recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-513?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Medicaid Demonstrations
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services's transparency policies and procedures for new demonstrations and extensions. The report (GAO-19-315) is titled "Medicaid Demonstrations: Approvals of Major Changes Need Increased Transparency".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on April 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services's transparency policies and procedures for new demonstrations and extensions. The report (GAO-19-315) is titled "Medicaid Demonstrations: Approvals of Major Changes Need Increased Transparency". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on April 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found:"Medicaid demonstrations allow states flexibility to test new approaches for providing coverage and delivering Medicaid services. Since 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees demonstrations, has developed procedures to improve the transparency of the approval process. For example, CMS reviews demonstration applications (including for new demonstrations, extensions, and amendments to existing demonstrations) for their compliance with applicable transparency requirements, including that states seek public input on their applications.
However, GAO found weaknesses in CMS's policies for ensuring transparency.
* Changes to pending applications for new demonstrations or extensions. CMS lacks policies for ensuring transparency when states submit major changes to pending applications. For two of the four approvals of new demonstrations or extensions GAO reviewed in-depth, states submitted changes to their applications that could have significant effects on beneficiaries (such as disenrollment or other penalties) without first obtaining public comment on these changes at the state level.
* Amendments to existing demonstrations. CMS's transparency requirements for amendments are limited. For example, CMS does not require amendment applications to include how the changes may affect beneficiary enrollment or report on concerns raised in state public comments. However, states have proposed major changes--such as work and community engagement requirements--through amendments, raising concerns that major changes to states' demonstrations are being approved without a complete understanding of their impact."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Section 1115 demonstrations are a significant component of Medicaid spending and affect the care of millions of beneficiaries. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish procedures to ensure transparency in approvals of new demonstrations and extensions to existing demonstrations. The act did not address amendments, which are subject to long-standing guidance on public input.
GAO was asked to examine the transparency of demonstration approvals. Among other things, this report examines CMS's transparency policies and procedures for new demonstrations and extensions, and amendments to existing demonstrations. To review a variety of approval types across a large number of states, GAO examined all approvals of new demonstrations and extensions of and amendments to existing demonstrations granted from January 2017 through May 2018. GAO also conducted in-depth reviews of one approval in each of seven states, selected to include at least two approvals of each type. GAO reviewed demonstration documentation for these states, and interviewed state and federal Medicaid officials. GAO also assessed CMS's procedures against federal internal control standards."
What GAO Recommends: "CMS should develop policies for ensuring transparency when states (1) submit major changes to pending demonstration applications and (2) propose amendments to existing demonstrations. HHS concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-315?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Hardrock Mining
WASHINGTON, May 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on hardrock mining data related to mining on federal lands. The report (GAO-19-435R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal Lands".The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on May 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Of the six agencies in GAO's review--Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on hardrock mining data related to mining on federal lands. The report (GAO-19-435R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal Lands". The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on May 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Of the six agencies in GAO's review--Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the Department of the Interior (Interior), and Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture--BLM and Forest Service reported collecting data on some of the 16 selected hardrock mining data elements. Specifically, BLM and Forest Service both collect data on the value of bonds held to ensure reclamation of hardrock mining operations, but differ in the other data elements they collect. For example, BLM collects data on revenues generated from hardrock mining in the form of various fees paid by operators. In addition, BLM reported collecting data on the percentages of total acres of federal lands that have a surface disturbance related to an approved mining plan, as well as where the surface disturbance has been reclaimed. In contrast, Forest Service collects data on the percentage of federal land that has been withdrawn from mineral entry by various land management statutes, according to agency officials.
BLM and Forest Service officials reported that they collect certain data elements consistent with their missions related to managing hardrock mining. The remaining four agencies reported that they do not collect these 16 data elements because they are generally not involved in hardrock mining activities on their lands."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government manages about 650 million acres, or 29 percent, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Five land management agencies--BLM, FWS, NPS, Reclamation, and Forest Service--manage about 96 percent of the federal land. These agencies manage the lands under their jurisdictions for a variety of uses. For example, BLM and the Forest Service manage their lands for multiple uses, such as mining, timber, wildlife conservation, grazing, and recreation. In addition to the land management agencies, USGS provides science about mineral resources, natural hazards, and the effects of climate and land-use change, among other things.
This report examines the extent to which the six agencies collect selected hardrock mining data, and the agencies' reasons for not collecting or maintaining certain data, where applicable. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed its 2011 report on the availability and potential reliability of selected data elements at five agencies that encompassed over 100 data elements and identified 16 specific data elements related to hardrock mining. GAO then obtained information from the six agencies using a data collection instrument (DCI). Specifically, the DCI collected information on (1) whether agencies collect data on each of the 16 hardrock mining data elements; (2) where and in what format they maintain these data, if collected; and (3) reasons for not collecting or maintaining these data, if they did not do so. GAO did not determine which of these selected data elements, if any, the agencies are required to collect."
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-19-435R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Contracting
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to federal contractors and tax debt. The report (GAO-19-243) is titled "Federal Contracting: Opportunities to Improve Compliance with Regulations and Enhance Tax Collections".The report was sent to Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on April 15. Here are excerpts of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to federal contractors and tax debt. The report (GAO-19-243) is titled "Federal Contracting: Opportunities to Improve Compliance with Regulations and Enhance Tax Collections". The report was sent to Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on April 15. Here are excerpts ofsummaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The five selected agencies GAO reviewed have control activities--such as policies and procedures--to help ensure they consider qualifying federal tax debts as defined by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) * 52.209-11 and * 52.209-5 before awarding contracts. However, these controls were potentially ineffective in ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. According to GAO's analysis, in 2015 and 2016 the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs, and the Army and Navy, awarded 1,849 contracts to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debts, such as delinquent debts over $3,500 (see table). When a contractor reports qualifying tax debts under these regulations, the contracting officer must take several actions, including notifying the agency suspension and debarment official (SDO). However, SDOs at all five agencies told GAO they did not receive any notifications of contractors reporting tax debt in this period. As a result, these contracts may have been awarded without potential required actions, indicating potential violations of federal regulations and, in some cases, appropriations law.
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-243?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO's nongeneralizable review of seven contracts illustrate two cases where contractors were collectively awarded more than $510,000 in contract obligations while having more than $250,000 in tax debt, including tax penalties for willful noncompliance with tax laws. Officials from the selected agencies were unable to explain why their control activities were potentially ineffective without reviewing each contract to determine whether FAR requirements were applicable and whether control activities were applied. Understanding why existing control activities did not operate effectively will help these agencies enhance controls to avoid future misuses of appropriated funds. GAO plans to provide information on the instances of potential noncompliance GAO identified to the selected agencies.
Of the over 2,700 executive-branch contractors GAO found to have likely qualifying federal tax debt as of December 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had identified over 2,000 for levy through its automated Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP). However, the FPLP cannot levy all contractors because not all payments are processed by the system the FPLP uses. The data the IRS receives from agencies does not allow it to readily identify payments made using other systems--information the IRS needs for agency outreach about inclusion in the FPLP and to more quickly initiate a manual levy. With this information, the IRS may be able to improve its levy capacity and enhance tax collections."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government obligated approximately $507 billion on contracts in fiscal year 2017. Businesses, including federal contractors, pay billions of dollars in taxes each year. Some businesses, however, do not pay owed taxes, contributing to what is known as the tax gap. Federal contractors owe some of the taxes that contribute to the tax gap, and, since 2015, federal law prohibits agencies, under certain circumstances, from using appropriated funds to contract with those who have qualifying tax debt. The IRS also has authority to levy certain payments of contractors with qualifying federal tax debt.
GAO was asked to review issues related to federal contractors and tax debt. Among other things, GAO examined whether, in calendar years 2015 and 2016, (1) selected federal agencies had control activities that ensured contractors' reported federal tax debts were considered before contract award and (2) the IRS levied selected federal contractors' payments. GAO analyzed contract and IRS data from 2015 and 2016 (the most-recent data available), reviewed five agencies that represent 51 percent of contract obligations, and reviewed seven awards to contractors reporting tax debt."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 12 recommendations, including that selected agencies enhance controls for considering contactors' qualifying federal tax debt before awarding contracts and that the IRS evaluate options to obtain comprehensive contract-payment information. All the agencies generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-243?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Financial Audit of Fiscal Service's FY 2018 Schedules of General Fund
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on financial audit of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's fiscal 2018 Schedules of the General Fund. The report (GAO-19-185) is titled "Financial Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Fiscal Year 2018 Schedules of the General Fund".The report was sent to David Lebryk, fiscal assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, on May 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Certain significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scope ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on financial audit of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's fiscal 2018 Schedules of the General Fund. The report (GAO-19-185) is titled "Financial Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Fiscal Year 2018 Schedules of the General Fund". The report was sent to David Lebryk, fiscal assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, on May 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Certain significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scopeof GAO's work resulted in conditions that prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the Schedules of the General Fund as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. Such scope limitations also prevented GAO from obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an opinion on the effectiveness of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's (Fiscal Service) internal control over financial reporting relevant to the Schedules of the General Fund as of September 30, 2018. In addition, such scope limitations limited tests of compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements for fiscal year 2018.
Fiscal Service was unable to timely provide sufficient appropriate evidence to support certain information reported in the accompanying Schedules of the General Fund. The underlying scope limitations are the basis for GAO's disclaimer of opinion on the Schedules of the General Fund. These limitations primarily related to (1) the inability to readily identify and trace General Fund transactions to determine whether they were complete and properly recorded in the correct general ledger accounts and line items within the Schedules of the General Fund, (2) inadequate Fiscal Service procedures to determine the effect of differences between General Fund's records and the amounts reported by certain federal agencies on the Schedules of the General Fund, and (3) Fiscal Service's inability to timely provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the beginning balance of the Liability for Fund Balance with Treasury. GAO also identified two significant deficiencies contributing to the first two scope limitations discussed above. As a result of these limitations, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the Schedules of the General Fund and related notes may not be reliable.
Further, GAO identified two additional significant deficiencies in Fiscal Service's internal control over financial reporting relevant to the Schedules of the General Fund related to deficiencies in (1) information systems controls and (2) Fiscal Service's risk assessment and monitoring controls. In addition, GAO identified three other control deficiencies, which it does not consider to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies.
GAO recognizes that the fiscal year 2018 Schedules of the General Fund reflect the significant efforts of Fiscal Service over the past several years to develop the infrastructure to support the Schedules of the General Fund. Fiscal Service's actions have substantially improved its ability to report on the General Fund, including the government-wide cash inflows and outflows."
Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO audits the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government. Because of the significance of the General Fund of the United States (General Fund) to the government-wide financial statements, GAO audited the fiscal year 2018 Schedules of the General Fund, which are managed by Fiscal Service, to determine whether, in all material respects, (1) the schedules are fairly presented and (2) Fiscal Service management maintained effective internal control over financial reporting relevant to the Schedules of the General Fund. Further, GAO tested compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements related to the Schedules of the General Fund.
The General Fund is the reporting entity responsible for accounting for the cash activity of the U.S. government. In fiscal year 2018, the General Fund reported $14.2 trillion of cash inflows, including debt issuances and taxes collected, and $14.0 trillion of cash outflows, including debt repayments and Social Security and health care benefit payments. It also reported $21.6 trillion of federal debt securities held and managed by the Department of the Treasury as of September 30, 2018."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 12 recommendations to improve Fiscal Service's internal control over financial reporting relevant to the Schedules of the General Fund.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Fiscal Service concurred with the results of GAO's audit."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-185?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Bank Supervision
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how consistent regulators' revised policies and procedures are with leading risk-management practices. The report (GAO-19-352) is titled "Bank Supervision: Regulators Improved Supervision of Management Activities but Additional Steps Needed".The report was sent to Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Jelena McWilliams, chairman of the Board of Directors Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Comptroller of the Currency Joseph M. Otting, on May 14. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how consistent regulators' revised policies and procedures are with leading risk-management practices. The report (GAO-19-352) is titled "Bank Supervision: Regulators Improved Supervision of Management Activities but Additional Steps Needed". The report was sent to Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Jelena McWilliams, chairman of the Board of Directors Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Comptroller of the Currency Joseph M. Otting, on May 14. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Since 2009, federal banking regulators have revised policies and procedures for use by examiners in supervising depository institutions' management activities (such as those related to corporate governance and internal controls) and for identifying and communicating supervisory concerns. For example, regulators differentiated levels of severity for supervisory concerns and specified when to communicate them to boards of directors at the depository institutions. GAO found that the updated policies and procedures generally were consistent with leading risk-management practices, including federal internal control standards.
Examination documents that GAO reviewed showed that examiners generally applied the regulators' updated policies and procedures to assess management oversight at large depository institutions. In particular, for the institutions GAO reviewed, the regulators communicated deficiencies before an institution's financial condition was affected, and followed up on supervisory concerns to determine progress in correcting weaknesses. However, practices for communicating supervisory concerns to institutions varied among regulators and some communications do not provide complete information that could help boards of directors monitor whether deficiencies are fully addressed by management. Written communications of supervisory concerns from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) that GAO reviewed often lacked complete information about the cause of the concern and, for the Federal Reserve, also lacked information on the potential consequences of the concern, which in one instance led to an incomplete response by an institution. Communicating more complete information to boards of directors of institutions, such as the reason for a deficient activity or practice and its potential effect on the safety and soundness of operations, could help ensure more timely corrective actions.
While supervisory concern data indicated continuing management weaknesses, regulators vary in how they track and use the data. Data on supervisory concerns, and regulators' internal reports based on the data, indicated that regulators frequently cited concerns about the ability of depository institution management to control and mitigate risk. However, FDIC examiners only record summary information about certain supervisory concerns and not detailed characteristics of concerns that would allow for more complete information. With more detailed information, FDIC management could better monitor whether emerging risks are resolved in a timely manner. In addition, the regulators vary in the nature and extent of data they collect on the escalation of supervisory concerns to enforcement actions. FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) have relatively detailed policies and procedures for escalation of supervisory concerns to enforcement actions, but the Federal Reserve does not. According to Federal Reserve staff, in practice they consider factors such as the institution's response to prior safety and soundness actions. But the Federal Reserve lacks specific and measurable guidelines for escalation of supervisory concerns, relying solely on the judgment or experience of examiners, their management, and Federal Reserve staff, which can result in inconsistent escalation practices."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Weaknesses identified after the 2007-2009 financial crisis included management weaknesses at large depository institutions and the need for federal regulators (FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC) to address the deficiencies in a timely manner. Concerns remain that positive economic results of recent years could mask underlying risk-management deficiencies.
This report examined (1) how consistent regulators' revised policies and procedures are with leading risk-management practices, (2) how they applied examination policies and procedures, and (3) trends in supervisory concern data since 2012 and how regulators tracked such data. GAO compared regulators' policies and procedures for oversight against leading practices; compared documents from selected bank examinations for 2014-2016 against regulator's risk-management examination procedures; reviewed aggregate supervisory concern data for 2012-2016; and interviewed regulators and industry representatives."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FDIC and the Federal Reserve improve information in written communication of supervisory concerns; FDIC improve recording of supervisory concern data; and the Federal Reserve update guidelines for escalating supervisory concerns. FDIC disagreed with the first recommendation, stating its policies address the issue, but GAO found clarification is needed. FDIC agreed with the second recommendation. The Federal Reserve neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-352?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Ex-Im Bank
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Export-Import Bank's underwriting process. The report (GAO-19-43) is titled "Export-Import Bank: Enhancements Needed in Credit Program Underwriting Policies and Procedures".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 May 14. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Export-Import Bank's underwriting process. The report (GAO-19-43) is titled "Export-Import Bank: Enhancements Needed in Credit Program Underwriting Policies and Procedures". 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 May 14. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "GAO found that Export-Import Bank's (EXIM) process for updating its underwriting policies and procedures was properly designed and implemented. EXIM's Loan, Guarantee and Insurance Manual (Manual) describes EXIM's underwriting policies and procedures for its short-, medium-, and long-term loans and loan guarantees. The Manual describes the responsibilities of divisions and loan officers involved in the underwriting process and is required to be updated at least annually, except for material changes (e.g., changes resulting from legislative actions or compliance with sanctions), which are required to be made as soon as possible.
EXIM has initiated a process to streamline the Manual, which consists of over 1,400 pages, by separating the policies and procedures, thus allowing for continuous reviews. The underwriting sections of the Manual are tentatively scheduled for review in 2019.
The primary guidance for designing and managing federal credit programs is Office of Management and Budget Circular A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables. GAO found that EXIM's policies and procedures were consistent with three of five areas of federal guidance; two areas related to lender and servicer eligibility and risk sharing practices were partially consistent with federal guidance.
Applicant screening. EXIM's policies and procedures were consistent with guidance in that they require applicants to provide relevant financial information and assessments of applicant eligibility and creditworthiness.
Loan documentation. EXIM's process was consistent with guidance in that it requires the preparation of loan files, which include the application, credit reports, and related analyses, as well as collateral documentation and loan agreements.
Collateral requirements. EXIM's process was consistent with guidance in that it requires a security interest in the financed export items.
Lender and servicer eligibility. EXIM established eligibility and decertification procedures for short-term delegated authority lenders that were consistent with guidance. However, it did not establish similar procedures for medium-term delegated authority lenders.
Risk sharing practices. EXIM's process was generally consistent with guidance in that EXIM provides loan guarantee terms that officials stated were necessary to achieve program purposes. However, federal guidance also calls for an agency to periodically review programs in which the government bears more than 80 percent of any loss. While EXIM prepares various program reviews, it has not developed procedures to help ensure that its risk sharing practices are routinely reviewed.
Without enhancements to its policies and procedures, EXIM may allow lenders that are not qualified to underwrite transactions and runs the risk that it will not effectively review its programs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "EXIM serves as the official export credit agency of the United States, providing a range of financial products to support the export of U.S. goods and services. Following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, demand for EXIM support increased. However, from July 2015 to May 2019, EXIM lacked a quorum on its Board of Directors and, as a result, was unable to approve medium- and long-term transactions greater than $10 million.
The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012 includes a provision for GAO to evaluate EXIM's underwriting process. This report discusses the extent to which EXIM's (1) process for updating its underwriting policies and procedures is properly designed and implemented and (2) underwriting policies and procedures for loan and loan guarantee transactions are consistent with guidance for managing federal credit programs. To address these objectives, GAO evaluated EXIM's underwriting policies and procedures against federal guidance and discussed the underwriting process with EXIM officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations to enhance EXIM's policies and procedures related to (1) the use of medium-term delegated authority lenders and (2) periodic program reviews. EXIM concurred with GAO's recommendations and described actions planned to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-43?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Combating Nuclear Terrorism
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Securing the Cities program. The report (GAO-19-327) is titled "Combating Nuclear Terrorism: DHS Should Address Limitations to Its Program to Secure Key Cities".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, and Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, on May 13. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Securing the Cities program. The report (GAO-19-327) is titled "Combating Nuclear Terrorism: DHS Should Address Limitations to Its Program to Secure Key Cities". 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, and Rep. Peter T. King, R-New York, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, on May 13. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not collect information to fully track cities' use of Securing the Cities (STC) program funds for approved purposes and to assess their performance in the program. To reduce the risk of successful deployment of nuclear or radiological weapons in U.S. cities, the program establishes local threat detection and deterrence capabilities. DHS tracks cities' spending of program funds and some performance data through cities' quarterly reports but does not collect other data on itemized expenditures and to assess how effectively cities achieved performance metrics and program milestones or how they performed in drills that simulate a threat. For example, DHS does not compare information on expenditures to the purchase plans it approved for cities. As a result, DHS does not know the dollar amounts cities actually spent on program purchases. Expenditure data GAO requested show that cities spent most funds on detection equipment--that is, $94.5 million of the $144.8 million cities spent through June 30, 2018. By regularly collecting expenditure information from cities and comparing it to approved purchase plans, DHS could better ensure these funds were spent consistent with program goals.
DHS does not have assurance that cities can sustain threat detection and deterrence capabilities gained through the STC program. DHS has not enforced planning requirements for sustaining those capabilities and has taken limited action to help cities do so, although encouraging sustainment is one of its primary program goals. Officials from the five cities in the program told GAO that they anticipate funding challenges that will adversely impact their ability to sustain capabilities over time. For example, several city officials said they cannot rely on other DHS or federal grant programs or local sources of funding once STC funding ends. Unless DHS analyzes risks related to sustainment, works with cities to address these risks, and enforces sustainment-planning requirements for cities in the program in the future, program participants could see their radiological detection programs and related capabilities deteriorate.
DHS has not (1) fully developed potential changes or documented a plan for making changes to the STC program; (2) identified the basis for such changes; and (3) consistently communicated with cities, raising concerns about how the changes will impact them. DHS officials told GAO that the agency is considering several potential changes to the STC program that would broaden its geographic reach and scope and centralize acquisition of detection equipment, among other things, but it has not fully developed or documented these changes and does not have a strategy or plan for implementing them. A law enacted in December 2018 requires DHS to develop an implementation plan for the STC program. The law's requirements would provide DHS an opportunity to identify the basis for potential changes, and assessing such changes would provide more reasonable assurance that they would strengthen the program. Further, most city officials GAO interviewed said that in an August 2018 meeting, DHS provided a high-level overview of potential changes and little detail on how such changes would be implemented or affect city operations. If DHS does not clearly communicate to cities how the program will operate under potential changes, these cities could face difficulties planning for the future and achieving the program's detection and deterrence objectives."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Countering the threat that a terrorist could smuggle nuclear or radiological materials into the United States is a top national security priority. In fiscal year 2007, DHS initiated the STC program to reduce the risk of the deployment of a nuclear or radiological weapon by establishing capability in state and local agencies to detect and deter such threats. Since the program began, five participating cities have spent almost $145 million in program funds.
GAO was asked to review the STC program. This report examines (1) the extent to which DHS tracks cities' use of program funds and assesses their performance; (2) what assurance DHS has that cities can sustain capabilities gained through the STC program and the challenges, if any, that cities face in sustaining such capabilities; and (3) potential changes to the STC program and how DHS plans to implement them, the basis for these changes, and the extent to which DHS has communicated with cities about the impact of making changes. GAO reviewed DHS documents, conducted site visits to all cities in the program, and interviewed DHS and city officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations including that DHS regularly collect detailed information from cities on program expenditures; analyze risks related to sustainment, work with cities to address these risks, and enforce sustainment-planning requirements for cities in the program; and clearly communicate to cities how the existing program will operate until a new program is in effect. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-327?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Emergency Assistance for Zika
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of State funding for U.S. Zika response overseas. The report (GAO-19-356) is titled "Emergency Assistance for Zika: USAID Supported Activities Overseas but Could Improve Funds Tracking and Response Planning".The report was sent to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the status of U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of State funding for U.S. Zika response overseas. The report (GAO-19-356) is titled "Emergency Assistance for Zika: USAID Supported Activities Overseas but Could Improve Funds Tracking and Response Planning". The report was sent to Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, R-South Carolina, chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Rep. Nita M. Lowey,D-New York, chairwoman, Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on May 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State (State) obligated $385 million of the total $390 million available for international Zika response and disbursed $264 million as of September 2018. USAID obligated 95 percent of the total funding. USAID and State provided some country information to Congress but did not provide, or take steps to track, funding on a country basis. According to USAID officials, tracking funding information by country would be helpful in the future. The ability to compile funding by country when responding to future infectious disease outbreaks would enable USAID to provide additional information to key decision makers to better support spending oversight and inform budgetary and planning decisions.
In response to the Zika outbreak, USAID and State supported a broad range of activities overseas, including mosquito control, research efforts, and medical evacuations. In one activity, USAID implementing partners monitored mosquito populations; in another, they researched methods to reduce Zika virus transmission rates. USAID implementing partners reported various outputs from selected activities. For example, an implementing partner reported that its awareness campaign on Zika prevention reached more than 5 million people.
USAID faced sustainability and timeliness challenges in implementing its Zika response. According to agency and other officials, one-time funding and a short time frame posed a challenge related to sustainability of Zika response activities. In response, USAID worked to align activities with those of host governments and other organizations so they could continue in the long term. However, USAID's emergency response planning did not fully address the challenge of timely implementation of response activities in countries without bilateral USAID health programs. Twenty-two of 26 countries with Zika response activities did not have bilateral USAID health programs when the Zika outbreak began. As a result, response activities took additional time to deploy in some countries where USAID first had to establish relationships with key host country officials. Although USAID developed an infectious disease response plan in 2018, the plan does not provide guidance on how to address the timely implementation challenge in countries without bilateral health programs. By improving its planning, such as by adding such guidance in its 2018 plan, USAID would be better positioned to respond quickly to future disease outbreaks."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus a public health emergency of international concern in February 2016. According to WHO, as of March 2017, 79 countries and territories--including 48 in the Western Hemisphere--reported evidence of ongoing Zika transmission. In April 2016, USAID and State repurposed $215 million for Zika from funds appropriated for Ebola. Subsequently, the Zika Response and Preparedness Appropriations Act, 2016, provided over $175 million in supplemental funding to USAID and State to support Zika response efforts overseas. The act also included a provision for GAO to review the status of USAID and State actions to respond to Zika. In March 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention downgraded its international travel warning for Zika.
This report examines (1) the status of USAID and State funding for U.S. Zika response overseas, (2) activities supported by these funds, and (3) implementation challenges, if any, and responses to any challenges. GAO reviewed information from U.S. agencies and met with U.S. and host country officials in Washington, D.C. GAO also conducted fieldwork in a nongeneralizable sample of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean where agencies implemented key response activities."
What GAO Recommends: "USAID should (1) take steps to ensure it is able to compile funding information by country for future infectious disease emergency responses and (2) take steps to improve its infectious disease response planning. USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-356?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Special Operations Forces
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's oversight of special operations forces. The report (GAO-19-386) is titled "Special Operations Forces: Additional Actions Are Needed to Effectively Expand Management Oversight".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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's oversight of special operations forces. The report (GAO-19-386) is titled "Special Operations Forces: Additional Actions Are Needed to Effectively Expand Management Oversight". 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 memberof the House Armed Services Committee, on May 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: Since 2017 the Department of Defense (DOD) has made recommendations, developed actions, and taken steps to address requirements in section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to expand the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's (ASD-SO/LIC) roles and responsibilities. DOD officials noted that they have taken an incremental implementation approach to addressing section 922. In 2018, DOD identified 166 recommendations to change the ASD-SO/LIC's oversight of special operations forces (SOF). These recommendations were used to develop 87 actions that were necessary to implement section 922. Since February 2019, DOD has implemented 56 of these actions. For example, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved a new Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council directive that identified the ASD-SO/LIC as the lead for that council. The Deputy Secretary of Defense also delegated the ASD-SO/LIC with authority to approve waivers to hire civilian personnel during a civilian hiring freeze.
Although the office of the ASD-SO/LIC has taken many actions to implement section 922, DOD faces two key challenges in completing its implementation of the ASD-SO/LIC's new roles and responsibilities:
* Lack of time frames. As of February 2019, 28 out of 31 unimplemented actions associated with section 922 did not have clear time frames for implementation. According to ASD-SO/LIC and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) officials, they did not prioritize establishing time frames because they took an incremental approach to implementing actions and addressed them on a case-by-case basis. Without clear time frames for implementation, ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM may be less effective in implementing section 922.
* Unclear guidance. Current guidance about ASD-SO/LIC responsibilities is outdated: for example, it states that the ASD-SO/LIC shall report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. However, section 922 states that special operation forces-related administrative matters are managed directly by the Secretary of Defense to the ASD-SO/LIC. The special operations force enterprise is a complex system, and unless roles and responsibilities are clarified in guidance, other DOD stakeholders, such as the military services, may not know the extent of the ASD-SO/LIC's and SOCOM's authorities and responsibilities. DOD officials expressed some concerns that until these matters are clarified in guidance, it will remain unclear whether the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM should work together--for example, on personnel issues--and how their relationships with stakeholders with oversight authority will be managed. DOD partially concurred, and based on its comments, GAO modified one recommendation.
The office of the ASD-SO/LIC has made efforts to develop a workforce plan, including commissioning a manpower study and taking steps to develop a hiring plan; however, these efforts do not fully incorporate some leading principles for a strategic workforce plan. For example, ASD-SO/LIC did not share the hiring plan with its staff, including key officials from the office of the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM. Without completing a comprehensive strategic workforce plan that includes key principles, the office of the ASD-SO/LIC may not know what gaps exist in skills and competencies in order to develop effective workforce strategies to fill those gaps. These issues could put the office of the ASD-SO/LIC at risk of hiring personnel who may not adequately meet its needs as defined by section 922."
Why GAO Did This Study: "As DOD increased its reliance on special operations forces, SOCOM's budget has increased from $5.2 billion in 2005 to $12.3 billion in 2018. Section 922 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 included provisions to enhance the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's responsibilities to be similar to those of a military department secretary regarding the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2018 NDAA included a provision for GAO to assess DOD's actions in response to section 922. This report assesses (1) the extent to which DOD has identified and taken actions to implement section 922; (2) what, if any, challenges it faces in completing implementation; and (3) the extent to which its hiring approach for the office of the ASD-SO/LIC has incorporated strategic workforce planning principles. GAO reviewed relevant documents and interviewed DOD officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to DOD to establish time frames for section 922 actions; update applicable guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities for the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM; and develop a strategic workforce plan that incorporates key principles. DOD partially concurred with the recommendations and GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report. GAO also modified one recommendation to address DOD concerns regarding its applicability."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-386?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Cloud Computing
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' reported use of cloud services. The report (GAO-19-58) is titled "Cloud Computing: Agencies Have Increased Usage and Realized Benefits, but Cost and Savings Data Need to Be Better Tracked".The report was sent to 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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on agencies' reported use of cloud services. The report (GAO-19-58) is titled "Cloud Computing: Agencies Have Increased Usage and Realized Benefits, but Cost and Savings Data Need to Be Better Tracked". The report was sent to 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 subcommitteeon Government Operations, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Rep. Robin L. Kelly, D-Illinois, on April 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The 16 agencies GAO reviewed made progress in implementing cloud computing services (cloud services)--namely, they established assessment guidance, performed assessments, and implemented these services--but the extent of their progress varied. To encourage cloud service acquisition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began requiring agencies to assess all information technology (IT) investments for cloud services. However, only 10 of the 16 agencies reviewed had established assessment guidance. In addition, while the agencies assessed the majority of their planned fiscal year 2019 IT investments for cloud services, 12 agencies had not completed an assessment of 10 or more investments. Nevertheless, 10 of the agencies reported increasing their use of cloud services between fiscal years 2016 through 2019 (see figure). Six agencies noted that inconsistent reporting of cloud investments and investment consolidation impacted their reported percentage.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-58?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Further, the 16 agencies reported that they had increased their cloud service spending since 2015 and 13 of the 16 agencies had saved $291 million to date from these services. However, these agencies identified issues in tracking and reporting cloud spending and savings data, including not having consistent processes in place to do so. Agencies also noted that OMB guidance did not require them to explicitly report savings from cloud implementations and, therefore, they had to specifically collect this data to meet GAO's request. As a result of these identified issues, it is likely that agency-reported cloud spending and savings figures were underreported.
Officials from 15 of the 16 agencies reported that they had identified significant benefits from acquiring cloud services, including improved customer service and the acquisition of more cost-effective options for managing IT services. In addition, these agencies identified nine cloud investments that, among other things, enhanced the availability of weather-related information, facilitated collaboration and information sharing among federal, state, and local agencies related to homeland security, and provided benefits information to veterans, as examples of systems that realized these benefits. One agency reported that it had not realized benefits because it did not have any completed migration efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Cloud computing enables on-demand access to shared computing resources providing services more quickly and at a lower cost than having agencies maintain these resources themselves. In 2012, OMB began requiring agencies to assess all IT investments for cloud services.
GAO was asked to review agencies' reported use of cloud services. This report discusses selected agencies' progress in implementing cloud services, the extent to which those agencies increased cloud service spending and achieved savings or cost avoidances, and examples of agency-reported cloud investments with notable benefits. GAO selected 16 agencies to review based on their fiscal year 2017 IT budgets and analyzed their use of cloud services, associated spending and savings data, and guidance for assessing investments for these services. GAO interviewed agency officials in charge of cloud services and reviewed pertinent documents to identify acquisitions with notable benefits. GAO also interviewed OMB staff about their agency's role in federal cloud computing and related OMB guidance."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making one recommendation to OMB on cloud savings reporting, and 34 recommendations to the 16 agencies on cloud assessments and savings. Fourteen agencies agreed with all recommendations, OMB and one agency neither agreed nor disagreed, and one (Defense) agreed with one recommendation but not the other. GAO continues to believe its recommendation to the department is appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-58?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Indian Issues
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the ability of Farm Credit System to meet the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on tribal land. The report (GAO-19-464) is titled "Indian Issues: Agricultural Credit Needs and Barriers to Lending on Tribal Lands".The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minnesota, chairman, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the ability of Farm Credit System to meet the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on tribal land. The report (GAO-19-464) is titled "Indian Issues: Agricultural Credit Needs and Barriers to Lending on Tribal Lands". The report was sent to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, chairman, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minnesota, chairman, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, ranking member of the HouseAgriculture Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman, and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, on May 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Limited data are available on the needs of Indian tribes and their members for agricultural credit, such as operating or equipment loans, to develop and expand agricultural businesses on tribal lands. Federal regulations have generally prohibited lenders from inquiring about the personal characteristics, such as race, of applicants on nonresidential loans. Some tribal stakeholders and experts said that tribal members may not have applied for agricultural credit because they heard of other tribal members being denied loans. They said that tribal members likely obtain agricultural credit from Department of Agriculture programs or tribal lenders. Another potential source of agricultural credit is the Farm Credit System (FCS), a government-sponsored enterprise that includes 69 associations that lend to farmers and ranchers.
Tribal stakeholders and experts reported a general lack of commercial credit on tribal lands due to the following factors:
* Land use restrictions. Most tribal lands only can be used as loan collateral in certain circumstances or with federal permission.
* Administrative process delays. Tribal members reported often encountering delays obtaining necessary federal loan documents.
* Legal challenges. Lenders reported concerns about their ability to recover loan collateral due to the unique legal status of tribes.
* Loan readiness. Tribal members may have no or poor credit histories and be unfamiliar with the paperwork required for an agricultural loan, such as a business plan.
FCS is authorized to provide a range of credit services to eligible agricultural producers, which may include Indian tribes, tribal businesses, and tribal members. FCS associations must obtain land as collateral for long-term real estate loans, but are not required to do so for shorter-term loans, such as for operating costs or equipment purchases. Some FCS associations GAO contacted reported making loans to Indian tribes or their members. In a sample of 11 FCS associations with tribal lands in their territory, eight said they have loaned to tribes or their members in the past 2 years. GAO's review of these 11 associations' marketing plans and written responses to GAO follow-up questions found that seven noted outreach--such as support for agricultural education activities--targeted to tribes and their members. The other four reported broad and general outreach efforts that also included minority groups.
To improve access to agricultural credit on tribal lands, stakeholders discussed several options. For example, some stakeholders discussed the potential for partnerships between commercial or government lenders and tribal lenders (such as Native Community Development Financial Institutions) and increased use of loan guarantees. Some stakeholders also discussed actions tribes could take to ease barriers to lending, such as adopting their own leasing procedures to reduce administrative processing time with federal agencies for certain loans."
Why GAO Did This Study: "About 46 million of the 56 million acres of the land that the federal government holds in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes and their members has an agricultural purpose. However, tribal agriculture and economic development experts have noted that Indian tribes and their members may need improved access to agricultural credit.
Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the ability of FCS to meet the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on tribal lands. This report describes (1) what is known about the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members, (2) barriers stakeholders identified to agricultural credit on tribal lands, (3) FCS authority and actions to meet those agricultural credit needs, and (4) stakeholder suggestions for improving Indians' access to agricultural credit on tribal lands.
GAO explored potential data sources on Indians' agricultural credit needs, conducted a literature review, and reviewed statutes and regulations governing tribal lands and FCS. GAO also reviewed the marketing plans and written responses of a nongeneralizable sample of 11 FCS associations whose territories included tribal lands with high levels of agricultural activity. GAO interviewed stakeholders from a sample of seven tribes (generally selected based on tribal region and agricultural activity), experts in tribal agriculture and economic development (selected based on relevant publications, Congressional testimonies, and others' recommendations), and representatives from FCS and its regulator, the Farm Credit Administration, and other relevant government agencies."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-464?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on IRS Financial Statements
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's fiscal 2018 and 2017 financial statements. The report (GAO-19-412R) is titled "Management Report: Improvements Are Needed to Enhance the Internal Revenue Service's Internal Control over Financial Reporting".The report was sent to Charles P. Rettig, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, on May 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "During its audit of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's fiscal 2018 and 2017 financial statements. The report (GAO-19-412R) is titled "Management Report: Improvements Are Needed to Enhance the Internal Revenue Service's Internal Control over Financial Reporting". The report was sent to Charles P. Rettig, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, on May 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "During its audit of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements,GAO identified continuing control deficiencies related to IRS's accounting for federal taxes receivable and other unpaid assessments that collectively represent a significant deficiency in IRS's internal control over unpaid tax assessments as of September 30, 2018. GAO also identified new control deficiencies in IRS's internal control over financial reporting that although not considered a material weakness or significant deficiency, nonetheless, warrant IRS management's attention. These control deficiencies concern IRS's
* nationwide strategy for safeguarding taxpayer receipts and associated information,
* physical security policies and procedures,
* review of visitor access logs,
* transmission of taxpayer receipts,
* designations of unit security representatives,
* review of automated tax refund information prior to certification for payment,
* review of refund schedule numbers for manual refunds, and
* review of suspicious and questionable tax returns in Examination.
In addition, for six of the 32 recommendations from GAO's prior reports related to control deficiencies in IRS's internal control over financial reporting, GAO found that IRS implemented corrective actions during fiscal year 2018 that resolved the deficiencies, and as a result, these recommendations were closed. GAO closed one additional recommendation that related to unpaid assessments, by making a new recommendation that is better aligned with the remaining deficiencies that collectively represent a significant deficiency in internal controls over this area as of September 30, 2018. As a result, IRS currently has 37 GAO recommendations to address--the previous 25 open recommendations and the 12 new recommendations GAO is making in this report."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The purpose of this report is to present those internal control deficiencies identified during GAO's audit of IRS's fiscal years 2018 and 2017 financial statements for which GAO did not already have any recommendations outstanding. This report provides new recommendations to address these internal control deficiencies and also presents the status, as of September 30, 2018, of IRS's corrective actions taken to address GAO's recommendations from its prior financial audits that remained open as of September 30, 2017."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 12 recommendations to address the identified control deficiencies. These recommendations are intended to improve IRS's internal controls over financial reporting as well as to bring IRS into conformance with its own policies and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. IRS stated that it is committed to implementing appropriate improvements to ensure that it maintains sound financial management practices. IRS agreed with GAO's 12 new recommendations and described planned actions to address each recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-412R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Transportation Department
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Transportation Department. The report (GAO-19-550SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: U.S. Department of Transportation".The report was sent to Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, on April 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Since then, DOT has implemented 3 of those recommendations by, among other things, addressing ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Transportation Department. The report (GAO-19-550SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: U.S. Department of Transportation". The report was sent to Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, on April 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 13 priority recommendations for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Since then, DOT has implemented 3 of those recommendations by, among other things, addressingconcerns related to vehicle cybersecurity by defining DOT's role in responding to vehicle cyberattacks, and addressing safety risks to oil and gas pipelines by updating emergency response regulations.
In April 2019, GAO identified 6 additional priority recommendations for OPM, bringing the total number to 16. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- funding surface transportation.
- addressing safety risks.
- cybersecurity risks.
- improving management of information technology (IT) workforce planning.
- improving federal grant management.
- Improving transportation readiness.
DOT'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-19-550SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Taxpayer Information
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's efforts to track, monitor and deter theft of taxpayer information from third parties. The report (GAO-19-340) is titled "Taxpayer Information: IRS Needs to Improve Oversight of Third-Party Cybersecurity Practices".The report was sent to Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on May 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal law and guidance require that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) protect the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's efforts to track, monitor and deter theft of taxpayer information from third parties. The report (GAO-19-340) is titled "Taxpayer Information: IRS Needs to Improve Oversight of Third-Party Cybersecurity Practices". The report was sent to Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on May 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Federal law and guidance require that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) protect theconfidentiality, integrity, and availability of the sensitive financial and taxpayer information that resides on its systems. However, taxpayer information held by third-party providers--such as paid tax return preparers and tax preparation software providers--generally falls outside of these requirements, according to IRS officials.
In 2018, about 90 percent of individual taxpayers had their tax returns electronically filed by paid preparers or used tax preparation software to prepare and file their own returns."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Third-party providers, such as paid tax return preparers and tax preparation software providers, greatly impact IRS's administration of the tax system. If these third parties do not properly secure taxpayers' personal and financial information, taxpayers will be vulnerable to identity theft refund fraud and their sensitive personal information will be at risk of unauthorized disclosure. IRS estimates that it paid out at least $110 million in identity theft tax refund fraud during 2017, and at least $1.6 billion in identity theft tax refund fraud during 2016.
GAO was asked to review IRS's efforts to track, monitor, and deter theft of taxpayer information from third parties. Among other things, this report assesses what is known about the taxpayer information security requirements for the systems used by third-party providers, IRS's processes for monitoring compliance with these requirements, and IRS's requirements for third-party security incident reporting.
GAO analyzed IRS's information security requirements, standards, and guidance for third-party providers and compared them to relevant laws, regulations, and leading practices, such as NIST guidance and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO reviewed IRS's monitoring procedures and its requirements and processes for third-party reporting of security incidents, and compared them to Internal Control Standards and GAO's A Framework for Managing Fraud Risk in Federal Programs. GAO also interviewed IRS and tax industry group officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO suggests that Congress consider providing IRS with explicit authority to establish security requirements for paid preparers' and Authorized e-file Providers' systems.
GAO is also making eight recommendations, including that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* Develop a governance structure or other form of centralized leadership to coordinate all aspects of IRS's efforts to protect taxpayer information while at third-party providers.
* Require all tax software providers to adhere to prescribed information security controls.
* Regularly review and update security standards for tax software providers.
* Update IRS's monitoring programs to include basic cybersecurity issues.
* Standardize incident reporting requirements for all types of third-party providers.
IRS agreed with three recommendations, including the above recommendations to regularly review and update security standards for tax software providers, and standardize incident reporting requirements.
IRS disagreed with five recommendations--including the other three listed above--generally citing the lack of clear and explicit authority it would need to establish security requirements for the information systems of paid preparers and Authorized e-file Providers. GAO believes that IRS can implement these recommendations without additional statutory authority."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-340?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Whistleblowers
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on best practices for working with whistleblowers. The report (GAO-19-432) is titled "Whistleblowers: Key Practices for Congress to Consider When Receiving and Referring Information".The report was sent to Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, chairman, and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Washington, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, on May 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Congress receives whistleblower information in multiple ways. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on best practices for working with whistleblowers. The report (GAO-19-432) is titled "Whistleblowers: Key Practices for Congress to Consider When Receiving and Referring Information". The report was sent to Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, chairman, and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Washington, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, on May 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Congress receives whistleblower information in multiple ways.Congressional staff and advocacy groups said whistleblowers who contact the Congress typically reach out to oversight committees, the offices of their own representatives or senators, or authorizing committees. Congressional staff said some whistleblowers contact and work with multiple congressional offices simultaneously. Congressional office websites GAO reviewed included contact information to provide whistleblowers with multiple options for reporting suspected wrongdoing, including email links, hotlines, and web-based forms.
Congressional staff can access resources for guidance on working with whistleblowers including congressional advice and internal training on oversight, committee-specific training related to handling whistleblower cases, and training from external advocacy groups on techniques for working with whistleblowers. Staff from several committees said direct experience is important for building skills to effectively work with whistleblowers.
GAO identified key practices the Congress could consider when receiving and referring whistleblower information to other committees and federal agencies. These practices can serve as a resource for congressional offices and staff to intake, prioritize, refer, and follow-up with whistleblowers who contact their office or committee. For each step, GAO identified practices to help offices develop guidelines and procedures as well as for communication, including key questions staff can ask the whistleblower."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Federal whistleblowers--employees who report violations of law, agency mismanagement or ethical violations--help to safeguard the federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse. Whistleblowers can report to various entities, including the Congress. While these reports are a key source of information for federal oversight, whistleblowers can risk reprisal. Therefore, it is important to appropriately handle whistleblowers' information and identity.
The House Committee on Appropriations Report 115-696 included a provision for GAO to identify congressional avenues, resources, and best practices for working with whistleblowers. This report describes (1) how the Congress receives whistleblower information, (2) the policies and training currently available to congressional staff, and (3) key practices that the Congress could consider for receiving and referring information from whistleblowers. GAO interviewed congressional staff, officials from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and selected advocacy groups that have experience working with whistleblowers. GAO analyzed congressional websites and queried congressional staff regarding policies and training on whistleblowers for congressional staff. To develop key practices, GAO reviewed literature, existing procedures, and standards.
GAO is not making recommendations, but is available to assist the Congress with practices for working with whistleblowers. OSC and CIGIE provided technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-432?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Ginnie Mae
WASHINGTON, May 4 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Government National Mortgage Association. The report (GAO-19-191) is titled "Ginnie Mae: Risk Management and Staffing-Related Challenges Need to Be Addressed".The report was sent to Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The amount of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 4 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Government National Mortgage Association. The report (GAO-19-191) is titled "Ginnie Mae: Risk Management and Staffing-Related Challenges Need to Be Addressed". The report was sent to Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Financial Services subcommittee Housing, Community Development and Insurance, on April 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The amount of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that the Government National Mortgage Association (GinnieMae) guaranteed rose from $500 billion to $2 trillion in fiscal years 2007-2018--exposing it to a greater risk of loss. From 2011 to 2018, the majority of institutions issuing Ginnie Mae-guaranteed MBS (issuers) shifted from banks to nonbanks, such as mortgage lenders. Unlike banks, nonbank issuers generally are not consistently subject to comprehensive federal safety and soundness standards.
Since GAO's 2011 report, Ginnie Mae increased minimum financial requirements for MBS issuers and developed new tools to monitor them. However, it has limited flexibility under law to raise the fee charged to guarantee single-family MBS in response to changes in risks. Ginnie Mae also has not assessed if the current fee would provide it with sufficient capital reserves to withstand losses under various scenarios, which would be consistent with federal internal control and risk-management standards. Such an analysis would provide Ginnie Mae with information necessary to help ensure the fee is set appropriately and inform Congress whether Ginnie Mae needs greater flexibility to adjust the fee.
As GAO reported in 2011, Ginnie Mae still faces contracting and staffing challenges. It continues to rely heavily on contractors (because it has authority to use certain fee revenue to fund contractors but not its own in-house staff). However, it has not routinely analyzed if using its own in-house staff instead of contractors for certain functions would be more efficient. Such analyses could help inform Ginnie Mae and Congress about the optimal mix of contractors and staff and potential need for greater budget flexibility. Ginnie Mae also still faces challenges recruiting and retaining staff, in part due to its lower pay scale relative to some of its competitors. But it has not exhausted all options under its current authority to revise its pay scale to mitigate these challenges or evaluated the costs and benefits of other options. Such actions could help inform Ginnie Mae about how it could use current authorities to address these challenges and provide Congress with the information needed to consider providing Ginnie Mae with additional pay flexibility.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees and sets general policies that govern Ginnie Mae's operations. However, GAO previously reported that HUD's management challenges limit the effectiveness of its oversight of Ginne Mae and its other programs. In light of these challenges and Ginnie Mae's increasing risks, GAO reviewed the oversight structures of three similar financial entities and found that certain alternative structures used by these entities, such as boards of directors, offer potential oversight benefits that could be considered as part of any future reform proposals for Ginnie Mae. As GAO previously reported, if Congress considers legislation to reform the federal role in housing finance, such reforms would need to be comprehensive and consider all relevant federal entities, including Ginnie Mae. As part of such reforms, it also would be important to ensure that Ginnie Mae is adequately overseen and its risks effectively managed."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Ginnie Mae, a government corporation within HUD, plays a significant role in the secondary mortgage market. Institutions issue MBS (backed by federally insured or guaranteed mortgages). Ginnie Mae guarantees MBS investors timely payments of principal and interest on the MBS if issuers cannot make such payments. In 2011, GAO identified challenges related to Ginnie Mae's issuer oversight, staffing, and contracting.
GAO was asked to re-examine these issues. This report reviews Ginnie Mae's (1) MBS volume, issuers, and risks; (2) oversight of issuers and related risks; (3) staff levels and contractor use; and (4) oversight structure compared to selected entities to identify areas for potential reforms. GAO analyzed data on MBS volume, reviewed Ginnie Mae policies and procedures, reviewed oversight structures of three similar financial entities, and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes four recommendations to Ginnie Mae, including that it evaluate its issuer guaranty fee, contractor use, and alternative compensation structures. GAO also makes recommendations to Congress to consider requiring Ginnie Mae to report on its evaluations of (1) the adequacy of its issuer guaranty fee, (2) its reliance on contractors and use of certain fee revenue to hire in-house staff, and (3) use of greater flexibility to set staff compensation; and (4) to consider possible reforms to Ginnie Mae's oversight structure. Ginnie Mae concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-191?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Infrastructure Risk Management
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the uses, costs and benefits of natural coastal infrastructure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' coastal storm and flood risk management projects. The report (GAO-19-319) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Consideration of Project Costs and Benefits in Using Natural Coastal Infrastructure and Associated Challenges".The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, on March 28. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the uses, costs and benefits of natural coastal infrastructure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' coastal storm and flood risk management projects. The report (GAO-19-319) is titled "Army Corps of Engineers: Consideration of Project Costs and Benefits in Using Natural Coastal Infrastructure and Associated Challenges". The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, on March 28. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) typically identified project costs and damage reduction benefits for the eight projects using natural infrastructure that GAO reviewed. In selecting projects, the Corps is to conduct economic analyses of project alternatives, which may include hard structures, natural infrastructure, or a combination, to compare their costs and benefits. Corps guidance states that for coastal storm and flood risk management projects it is to select the alternative determined to have the maximum net benefits (benefits minus project costs). The Corps calculated project costs for the eight projects, such as planning, design, construction, and maintenance costs. It calculated damage reduction benefits for seven projects by estimating reduced damages to existing structures in the project area, including to homes and commercial buildings. Corps guidance allows the economic analysis to also include incidental benefits of a project, and four projects incorporated recreational benefits of alternatives, such as increases in recreational visits because beaches would be larger. The Corps did not include other types of incidental benefits, such as environmental or other social benefits, for the eight projects. Corps documentation for one project identified environmental benefits of constructing wetlands as part of the project, such as improving ecosystems and filtering water. However, Corps officials said they did not incorporate these benefits into the economic analysis because the benefits could not be monetized.
The Corps faces challenges in developing cost and benefit information for some types of natural infrastructure and has initiated steps to address this. For example, a 2015 Corps report identified knowledge gaps in understanding how natural coastal infrastructure, such as wetlands, may perform during coastal storms. These knowledge gaps make it challenging for the Corps to develop cost and benefit information for some natural infrastructure alternatives and compare them to other alternatives, such as those that use hard infrastructure. The Corps recognizes the need to obtain additional data to better develop cost and benefit information and has begun taking steps to do so. For example, in 2018, the Corps initiated a project to help identify natural infrastructure knowledge gaps and prioritize key areas for research. The Corps plans to incorporate information gathered from this project into a strategic plan that is intended to help inform research funding decisions for fiscal year 2020, according to a Corps official."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Corps constructs water resources projects to reduce risks to coastal communities from storm damage, among other things. These projects can involve building hard structures, such as seawalls, to protect against flooding and wave damage. The Corps and some state and local agencies are increasingly considering using natural infrastructure, such as wetlands, to reduce risks from coastal storms and flooding.
GAO was asked to review the uses, costs, and benefits of natural coastal infrastructure for the Corps' coastal storm and flood risk management projects. This report describes (1) how the Corps considered costs and benefits for selected projects that used natural infrastructure and (2) challenges the Corps faces in developing cost and benefit information for using natural infrastructure and steps taken to address them.
GAO reviewed Corps guidance; obtained information on projects that used natural infrastructure and received funding from fiscal years 2012 through 2017; randomly selected eight coastal storm and flood risk reduction projects from the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts; and reviewed each project's planning documentation and economic analyses. Findings from these projects are not generalizable to all Corps' projects. GAO also reviewed economic literature, reviewed Corps documents related to the use of natural infrastructure, and interviewed Corps officials and stakeholders with experience in using natural infrastructure."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-319?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on FITARA Implementation
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act provisions. The report (GAO-19-131) is titled "Information Technology: Effective Practices Have Improved Agencies' FITARA Implementation".The report was sent to 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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act provisions. The report (GAO-19-131) is titled "Information Technology: Effective Practices Have Improved Agencies' FITARA Implementation". The report was sent to 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 GovernmentReform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Rep. Robin L. Kelly, D-Illinois, on April 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Nine selected agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, and Veterans Affairs; the Agency for International Development; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the General Services Administration) identified 12 practices that helped them to effectively implement one or more Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act provisions (commonly referred to as FITARA). The following figure identifies the 12 practices, including the four overarching ones, considered vital to implementing all provisions.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-131?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
By applying the overarching practices, covered agencies were better positioned to implement FITARA. In addition, by implementing the practices relative to the five FITARA provisions GAO selected, covered agencies realized information technology (IT) management improvements, such as decommissioning old systems and cost savings."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Congress has long recognized that IT has the potential to enable federal agencies to accomplish their missions more quickly, effectively, and economically. However, fully exploiting this potential has presented challenges to covered agencies, and the federal government's management of IT has produced mixed results.
As part of its effort to reform the government-wide management of IT, in December 2014 Congress enacted FITARA. The law included specific requirements related to enhancing Chief Information Officers' (CIO) authorities, improving the risk management of IT investments, reviewing agencies' portfolio of IT investments, consolidating federal data centers, and purchasing software licenses. GAO has reported numerous times on agencies' effectiveness in implementing the provisions of the law and highlighted agencies that have had success in implementing selected provisions.
In this report, GAO identifies practices that agencies have used to effectively implement FITARA. GAO selected five provisions of FITARA to review: (1) CIO authority enhancements; (2) enhanced transparency and improved risk management; (3) portfolio review; (4) data center consolidation; and (5) software purchasing. GAO then selected nine agencies that had success in implementing at least one of the five provisions. GAO compiled practices where at least one agency was better positioned to implement a provision or realized an IT management improvement or cost savings."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-131?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Workforce Talent Management Strategies
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the future of federal work and the workforce. The report (GAO-19-181) is titled "Federal Workforce: Key Talent Management Strategies for Agencies to Better Meet Their Missions".The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on March 28. Here are excerpts of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the future of federal work and the workforce. The report (GAO-19-181) is titled "Federal Workforce: Key Talent Management Strategies for Agencies to Better Meet Their Missions". The report was sent to Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on March 28. Here are excerpts ofsummaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Federal work is changing amid demographic and technological trends (see figure below).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-181?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Given these trends, key talent management strategies can help agencies better manage the current and future workforce. These strategies are all within agencies' existing authorities:
Align human capital strategy with current and future mission requirements. With shifting attitudes toward work, technological advances, and increased reliance on nonfederal partners, agencies need to identify the knowledge and skills necessary to respond to current and future demands. Key practices include identifying and assessing existing skills, competencies, and skills gaps.
Acquire and assign talent. To ensure agencies have the talent capacity to address evolving mission requirements and negative perceptions of federal work (e.g., that it is too bureaucratic), agencies can cultivate a diverse talent pipeline, highlight their respective missions, recruit early in the school year, support rotations, and assign talent where needed.
Incentivize and compensate employees. While federal agencies may struggle to offer competitive pay in certain labor markets, they can leverage existing incentives that appeal to workers' desire to set a schedule and to work in locations that provide work-life balance.
Engage employees. Engaged employees are more productive and less likely to leave, according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Agencies can better ensure their workforces are engaged by managing employee performance, involving employees in decisions, and developing employees."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Much has changed since the federal government's employment policies were designed generations ago. Without careful attention to strategic human capital management, the federal government may continue to struggle to compete for workers with the skills needed to address the nation's social, economic, and security challenges.
GAO was asked to review issues related to the future of federal work and the workforce. This report identifies: (1) key trends affecting federal work and workers, and (2) key talent management strategies for achieving a high-performing workforce, given those trends.
GAO analyzed data from OPM and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and reviewed reports from GAO, OPM, and selected think tanks. GAO also held group interviews with agency Chief Human Capital Officers, and interviewed human capital experts and representatives of federal labor unions, managers, and executives. Additionally, GAO spoke with private consulting firms and foreign governments regarding human capital strategies that officials said were helpful to improving their organizations."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO has open recommendations to OPM related to key talent management strategies, including developing a core set of metrics that agencies should use to close mission-critical skills gaps. OPM agreed with most of these recommendations and has made some progress, but additional actions are needed. OPM provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-181?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the F-35 acquisition program. The report (GAO-19-341) is titled "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Action Needed to Improve Reliability and Prepare for Modernization Efforts".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the F-35 acquisition program. The report (GAO-19-341) is titled "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Action Needed to Improve Reliability and Prepare for Modernization Efforts". 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 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The F-35 program has made slow, sustained progress in improving the aircraft's reliability and maintainability (R&M). The F-35 aircraft (see figure) are assessed against eight R&M metrics, which indicate how much time the aircraft will be in maintenance rather than operations. Half of these metrics are not meeting targets. While the Department of Defense (DOD) has a plan for improving R&M, its guidance is not in line with GAO's acquisition best practices or federal internal control standards as it does not include specific, measurable objectives, align improvement projects to meet those objectives, and prioritize funding. If the R&M requirements are not met, the warfighter may have to settle for a less reliable and more costly aircraft than originally envisioned.
In 2019, the F-35 program will start modernization efforts--estimated to cost $10.5 billion--for new capabilities to address evolving threats, without a complete business case, or a baseline cost and schedule estimate. Key documents for establishing the business case, such as an independent cost estimate and an independent technology assessment, will not be complete until after the program plans to award development contracts (see figure).
View figures at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-341?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Without a business case--consistent with acquisition best practices--program officials will not have a high level of confidence that the risk of committing to development has been reduced adequately prior to contract awards. Moving ahead without a business case puts F-35 modernization at risk of experiencing cost and schedule overruns similar to those experienced by the original F-35 program during its development."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2018, DOD sent an F-35 aircraft to its first combat mission and started initial operational testing. DOD now plans to spend over $270 billion to buy more than 2,000 F-35 aircraft over the next 26 years. Since 2011, GAO has found the need for more attention to the F-35's R&M performance to achieve an operationally suitable system.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 included a provision for GAO to review the F-35 acquisition program until it reaches full-rate production. This is GAO's fourth report under this provision. This report assesses, among other objectives, (1) the program's progress in meeting R&M requirements (such as mission reliability) and (2) its plans for spending on new capabilities. GAO reviewed and analyzed management reports and historical test data; discussed key aspects of F-35 development with program management and contractor officials; and compared acquisition plans to DOD policies and GAO acquisition best practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations to DOD, including that it identify specific and measurable R&M improvement objectives, align improvement projects, and prioritize resources to meet them. In addition, DOD should complete its business case for modernization before beginning additional development efforts. DOD did not concur with this recommendation, but did concur with the R&M recommendations and plans to take action to address them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-341?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DATA Act
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The report (GAO-19-299) is titled "DATA Act: Pilot Effectively Tested Approaches for Reducing Reporting Burden for Grants but Not for Contracts".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. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The report (GAO-19-299) is titled "DATA Act: Pilot Effectively Tested Approaches for Reducing Reporting Burden for Grants but Not for Contracts". 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, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, on April 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In response to requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) led implementation of a pilot program, known as the Section 5 Pilot, aimed at developing recommendations for reducing recipient reporting burden for federal grantees and contractors.
The pilot program met many, but not all, of its statutory requirements. For example, the act required OMB to issue guidance to agencies for reducing reporting burden for federal award recipients (including both grantees and contractors) based on the pilot's findings. OMB partially met this requirement because the guidance it issued only applied to grants.
The pilot program consisted of two parts, which differed considerably in both design and results: The grants portion, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), examined six approaches for reducing grantee reporting burden and found positive results related to reductions in reporting time as well as reduced duplication. HHS incorporated ongoing stakeholder input during the pilot, and its findings contributed to government-wide initiatives related to federal reporting and reducing grantee-reporting burden.
The procurement (contracts) portion of the pilot, led by OMB with assistance from the General Services Administration (GSA), did not collect sufficient evidence to determine whether centralizing procurement reporting through a single web-based portal would reduce contractor reporting burden--a key objective of the pilot. The pilot planned to test the portal by collecting weekly Davis-Bacon wage data from a minimum of 180 contractors, potentially resulting in thousands of submissions over a year. However, in the end, the pilot did not result in any Davis-Bacon data due to lack of contractor participation and the absence of iterative and ongoing stakeholder engagement. Subsequently, OMB expanded the pilot to include hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reporting but received only 11 HFC submissions. (See figure.) In addition, HFC reporting was not suited for assessing changes in reporting burden because it was a new requirement and thus no comparative data existed. OMB plans to expand its use of the portal for additional procurement reporting requirements but still does not have information from stakeholders that could help inform the expansion."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-299?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "The DATA Act required OMB or a designated federal agency to establish a pilot program to develop recommendations for reducing recipient reporting burden for federal grantees and contractors. The grants portion of the pilot tested six ways to reduce recipient reporting burden while the procurement portion focused on testing a centralized reporting portal for submitting reporting requirements. This report follows a 2016 GAO review on the design of the pilot.
This report assesses the extent to which (1) the pilot met the statutory requirements set out in the DATA Act, (2) the grants portion of the pilot demonstrated changes in reporting burden, and (3) the procurement portion demonstrated changes in reporting burden. GAO reviewed statutory requirements, pilot plans, agency data and reports and interviewed OMB staff and officials from HHS and GSA."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Director of OMB ensure that information is collected regarding how centralized reporting of procurement requirements might reduce recipient reporting burden--including input from stakeholders such as contractors through an iterative and ongoing process--to inform OMB's planned expansion of the Central Reporting Portal. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation but provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-299?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Military Depots
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the condition of facilities at the Department of Defense's depots. The report (GAO-19-242) is titled "Military Depots: Actions Needed to Improve Poor Conditions of Facilities and Equipment That Affect Maintenance Timeliness and Efficiency".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 April 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The condition of facilities at ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the condition of facilities at the Department of Defense's depots. The report (GAO-19-242) is titled "Military Depots: Actions Needed to Improve Poor Conditions of Facilities and Equipment That Affect Maintenance Timeliness and Efficiency". 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 April 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The condition of facilities ata majority of the Department of Defense's (DOD) depots is poor and the age of equipment is generally past its useful life, but the services do not consistently track the effect that these conditions have on depot performance. Twelve of the 21 depots GAO reviewed--more than half--had "poor" average facility condition ratings (see figure). Some facilities also serve functions for which they were not designed, reducing their efficiency. In addition, the average age of depot equipment exceeded its expected useful life at 15 of the 21 depots. These factors contributed, in part, to a decline in performance over the same period. From 2007 to 2017, performance at the depots generally declined, reducing the availability of the weapon systems repaired for training and operations. Optimizing facilities and equipment at the depots can improve their maintenance efficiency. For example, the Navy estimates that its shipyard optimization effort will save over 325,000 labor days per year, which would allow an additional submarine overhaul annually. However, the services lack data on the effect that facilities and equipment conditions have on maintenance delays, hindering DOD's ability to effectively target investments to the highest priorities.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-242?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
DOD and the services' approach for managing investments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its depots lacks elements important to addressing key challenges. The services have efforts underway to complete their plans by February 2019 to address their depots' facility and equipment needs. However, GAO found that these plans are preliminary and will not include key elements, such as analytically-based goals; results-oriented metrics; a full accounting of the resources, risks, and stakeholders; and a process for reporting on progress. Addressing the poor conditions at DOD's 21 depots will cost billions and require sustained management attention over many years. However, the DOD office responsible for depot policy does not monitor or regularly report on depot improvement efforts to DOD decision makers and Congress. Until DOD and the services incorporate these key elements into the management approach for their depot investments, they risk continued deterioration of the depots, hindering their ability to meet the Secretary of Defense's goals for improving readiness and reducing operating and support costs."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The military services' 21 depots maintain the readiness of critical weapon systems such as ships, aircraft, and tanks needed for military operations. The condition of depot facilities and equipment directly affects the timeliness of maintenance and the readiness of the weapon systems they repair. The services have invested over $13 billion in the depots from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2017.
Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to examine the services' investment in and performance of their depots. GAO evaluated (1) the condition of depot facilities and equipment, their relationship to depot performance, and the services' tracking of the relationship to depot performance and (2) the extent to which DOD and the services have developed an approach for guiding depot investments to address key challenges. GAO also provides an overview summary for each depot. GAO reviewed data from fiscal years 2007 through 2017 on depot investment, performance, and the age and condition of facilities and equipment; reviewed agency guidance; and interviewed DOD, service, and depot officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 13 recommendations to improve data collection on the effect of facilities and equipment condition on depot performance, and develop plans that incorporate key elements to guide depot investments. DOD concurred with 12 recommendations, but did not agree to monitor and report on depot investments. We continue to believe monitoring and reporting will enhance DOD's efforts to improve its depots."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-242?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Commerce Department
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Commerce Department. The report (GAO-19-381SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Commerce".The report was sent to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr., on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce). Since then, Commerce has implemented 10 of those recommendations by, among other things, taking actions to improve its ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Commerce Department. The report (GAO-19-381SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Commerce". The report was sent to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr., on April 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce). Since then, Commerce has implemented 10 of those recommendations by, among other things, taking actions to improve itsmanagement of the 2020 Decennial Census by better positioning itself to make informed decisions about trade-offs among methods and anticipating and mitigating challenges it may face during implementation of the census.
In April 2019, GAO identified 5 additional priority recommendations for Commerce, bringing the total number to 21. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- improving management of the 2020 Decennial Census.
- improving IT workforce planning.
- evaluating programs that support entrepreneurs.
- developing performance metrics for trade adjustment assistance programs.
- improving the effectiveness of the conflict minerals disclosure rule.
- improving the physical security of National Institute of Standards and Technology campuses.
Commerce's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Priority 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 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 priority recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-381SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Veterans Health Administration Performance Recommendations
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Veterans Health Administration's management of medical center performance. The report (GAO-19-350) is titled "Veterans Health Administration: Past Performance System Recommendations Have Not Been Implemented".The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Washington, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Veterans Health Administration's management of medical center performance. The report (GAO-19-350) is titled "Veterans Health Administration: Past Performance System Recommendations Have Not Been Implemented". The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Washington,on April 30. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials told GAO they primarily use the Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) system to assess VA medical center performance. SAIL includes 27 quality measures in areas such as acute care mortality and access to care. VHA officials use SAIL to calculate and assign each medical center an annual star rating of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) stars as an assessment of overall quality. For the 146 medical centers that received star ratings in fiscal year 2018, the distribution of star ratings was as follows: 6 percent, 1 star; 24 percent, 2 stars; 38 percent, 3 stars; 19 percent, 4 stars; and 12 percent, 5 stars. Although the specific medical centers within each star-rating category could change from year to year, GAO found that the fiscal year 2018 star ratings for 110 of the 127 medical centers (87 percent) that received star ratings in fiscal year 2013 did not differ by more than 1 star from their fiscal year 2013 rating.
Changes in VHA Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning Star Ratings, Fiscal Year 2013 Compared to Fiscal Year 2018
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-350?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO found that VHA's appraisal process for assessing medical center director performance relies heavily on medical center performance information, including SAIL. For example, the most heavily weighted appraisal element (40 percent of the overall rating) is made up entirely of medical center performance information.
SAIL was evaluated in 2014 and 2015, but VHA has not assessed the recommendations from those evaluations, or taken action on them. The evaluations, which found issues related to the validity and reliability of SAIL and its star ratings for measuring performance and fostering accountability, together included more than 40 recommendations for improving SAIL. The findings are similar to concerns expressed by officials GAO interviewed from VHA, networks, and medical centers about SAIL's effectiveness and how it is currently being used to assess medical center performance. VHA officials told GAO the findings and recommendations of the previous SAIL evaluations were not assessed because the evaluation reports were not widely distributed within VHA due to leadership turnover, as well as attention that was diverted to other concerns such as extensive wait times for medical appointments. Without ensuring that the recommendations resulting from these previous evaluations are assessed and implemented as appropriate, the identified deficiencies may not be adequately resolved, and VHA's ability to hold officials accountable for taking the necessary actions may be diminished."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VHA anticipates that it will provide care to more than 7 million veterans in fiscal year 2019. The majority of veterans using VHA health care services receive care in one or more of the 172 medical centers or at associated outpatient facilities. VHA collects an extensive amount of data that can be used to assess and manage the performance of medical centers. Many measures are publicly reported on VA web pages, allowing veterans the ability to compare medical centers' quality of care.
GAO was asked to assess VHA's management of medical center performance. This report examines (1) the tools VHA uses to assess medical center performance; (2) VHA's use of medical center performance information to assess medical center directors; and (3) the extent to which VHA has evaluated the effectiveness of the SAIL system.
GAO reviewed VHA policies, guidance, and performance information for medical centers and their associated directors. GAO also interviewed officials from VHA as well as from four VA medical centers, selected for variation in performance and geographic location."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Under Secretary for Health: (1) assess recommendations from previous evaluations of SAIL for implementation; and (2) implement, as appropriate, recommendations resulting from the assessment. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations and identified actions it is taking to implement them."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-350?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Tax Debt Collection Contracts
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's private debt collection program. The report (GAO-19-193) is titled "Tax Debt Collection Contracts: IRS Analysis Could Help Improve Program Results and Better Protect Taxpayers".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. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, chairman, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's private debt collection program. The report (GAO-19-193) is titled "Tax Debt Collection Contracts: IRS Analysis Could Help Improve Program Results and Better Protect Taxpayers". 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. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, chairman,and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight, on March 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documented objectives and proposed measures for its private debt collection (PDC) program for sending tax debt cases to private collection agencies, but the objectives are not clearly defined and their linkages with program measures are unclear. For example, one objective is to provide taxpayers an opportunity to understand and resolve their tax debts, but the proposed measure focuses on taxpayer satisfaction with collection agencies rather than taxpayers' understanding. The objectives also do not include some key program risks, such as scams. Without clearly defined objectives and measures, IRS will have limited ability to assess program results.
IRS's reports to Congress on the PDC program have not provided complete financial information. For example, as of September 2018, IRS reported program revenue collections of about $89 million and costs of $67 million, suggesting a positive balance of $22 million for the general fund of the Treasury (the Treasury). However, the report did not clarify that about $51 million collected went to the Treasury and the remaining $38 million were retained by IRS in two special funds to pay current and future program costs. Without this information, Congress has an incomplete picture of the program's true costs and revenues.
IRS has not analyzed PDC program results to identify the types of cases that should not be assigned to collection agencies because they do not result in collections. GAO's analysis of IRS data shows that between April 2017 and September 2018 about 73,000 of 111,000 cases closed by collection agencies had little or no revenue collected because the collection agencies were unable to contact the taxpayer or collect the debt, among other reasons. Given the costs associated with managing these cases, without such analyses, IRS may continue to use resources inefficiently and assign cases with little or no potential for revenue collection, or miss opportunities to assign other cases that could produce more revenue.
IRS has identified and taken steps to mitigate some PDC program risks that could harm taxpayers. However, IRS has not completed the process of identifying and documenting all risks nor has it fully assessed risks to taxpayers from the program or its response to these risks. Specifically, GAO found that:
- IRS identified and documented 6 taxpayer risks related to the PDC program, such as scammers impersonating collection agencies, but had not identified an additional 10 risks that GAO did, such as taxpayers agreeing to debt payments they cannot afford.
- IRS had not consistently assessed the impact or likelihood of the identified risks. As a result, IRS's responses to mitigate risks were broad in nature, and were not prioritized or aligned to address specific risks.
- IRS monitors a sample of collection agencies' telephone calls with taxpayers and reviews taxpayer complaints, but these methods do not provide information on whether IRS's responses to risks are effective.
Without addressing these risk management issues, IRS cannot ensure it has fully identified PDC program risks and effectively responded to protect taxpayers from them."
Why GAO Did This Study: "IRS attempts to collect tax debts to promote tax compliance but does not have resources to pursue all debts. A 2015 law required IRS to contract with private collection agencies for certain tax debts. However, stakeholders such as the National Taxpayer Advocate have noted that safeguards are needed to protect taxpayers from risks, such as scammers impersonating collection agencies.
GAO was asked to review IRS's PDC program. This report assesses the extent to which IRS (1) documented program objectives and measures, (2) documented revenue collection and cost results data, (3) used data to improve the program and meet its objectives, and (4) addressed risks to prevent or address scams and other harmful effects on taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS's documents on PDC program administration and planning; collections and costs reporting; and managing risks. GAO interviewed officials from IRS and external groups that represent taxpayer interests."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes 12 recommendations, including that IRS improve PDC program objectives and measures, revenue and cost reporting, analysis to assign cases, and management of taxpayer risks. IRS agreed with nine recommendations, partially agreed with GAO's recommendation on improving objectives--which GAO clarified in response--and disagreed with two recommendations to include certain costs in reporting and analyze data to identify cases not collectible. GAO maintains the recommendations would more fully report PDC program federal costs and prevent waste."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-193?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Retirement Savings
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on early withdrawals from retirement savings. The report (GAO-19-179) is titled "Retirement Savings: Additional Data and Analysis Could Provide Insight into Early Withdrawals".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 March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: In 2013 individuals in their prime working years (ages 25 to 55) removed at least $69 billion (+/- ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on early withdrawals from retirement savings. The report (GAO-19-179) is titled "Retirement Savings: Additional Data and Analysis Could Provide Insight into Early Withdrawals". 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 March 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: In 2013 individuals in their prime working years (ages 25 to 55) removed at least $69 billion (+/-$3.5 billion) of their retirement savings early, according to GAO's analysis of 2013 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Labor (DOL) data. Withdrawals from individual retirement accounts (IRA)--$39.5 billion (+/- $2.1 billion)--accounted for much of the money removed early, were equivalent to 3 percent (+/- 0.15 percent) of the age group's total IRA assets, and exceeded their IRA contributions in 2013. Participants in employer-sponsored plans, like 401(k) plans, withdrew at least $29.2 billion (+/- $2.8 billion) early as hardship withdrawals, lump sum payments made at job separation (known as cashouts), and loan balances that borrowers did not repay. Hardship withdrawals in 2013 were equivalent to about 0.5 percent (+/-0.06 percent) of the age group's total plan assets and about 8 percent (+/- 0.9 percent) of their contributions. However, the incidence and amount of certain unrepaid plan loans cannot be determined because the Form 5500--the federal government's primary source of information on employee benefit plans--does not capture these data.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified flexibilities in plan rules and individuals' pressing financial needs, such as out-of-pocket medical costs, as factors affecting early withdrawals of retirement savings. Stakeholders said that certain plan rules, such as setting high minimum loan thresholds, may cause individuals to take out more of their savings than they need. Stakeholders also identified several elements of the job separation process affecting early withdrawals, such as difficulties transferring account balances to a new plan and plans requiring the immediate repayment of outstanding loans, as relevant factors.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed suggested strategies they believed could balance early access to accounts with the need to build long-term retirement savings. For example, plan sponsors said allowing individuals to continue to repay plan loans after job separation, restricting participant access to plan sponsor contributions, allowing partial distributions at job separation, and building emergency savings features into plan designs, could help preserve retirement savings (see figure). However, they noted, each strategy involves tradeoffs, and the strategies' broader implications require further study."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-179?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "Federal law encourages individuals to save for retirement through tax incentives for 401(k) plans and IRAs--the predominant forms of retirement savings in the United States. In 2017, U.S. plans and IRAs reportedly held investments worth nearly $17 trillion dollars. Federal law also allows individuals to withdraw assets from these accounts under certain circumstances. DOL and IRS oversee 401(k) plans, and collect annual plan data--including financial information--on the Form 5500. For both IRAs and 401(k) plans, GAO was asked to examine: (1) the incidence and amount of early withdrawals; (2) factors that might lead individuals to access retirement savings early; and (3) policies and strategies that might reduce the incidence and amounts of early withdrawals.
To answer these questions, GAO analyzed data from IRS, the Census Bureau, and DOL from 2013 (the most recent complete data available); and interviewed a diverse range of stakeholders identified in the literature, including representatives of companies sponsoring 401(k) plans, plan administrators, subject matter experts, industry representatives, and participant advocates."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that, as part of revising the Form 5500, DOL and IRS require plan sponsors to report the incidence and amount of all 401(k) plan loans that are not repaid. DOL and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-179?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for EPA
WASHINGTON, April 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency. The report (GAO-19-308SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Environmental Protection Agency".The report was sent to Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 19 priority recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since then, EPA has implemented five of those recommendations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency. The report (GAO-19-308SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Environmental Protection Agency". The report was sent to Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In March 2018, GAO identified 19 priority recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since then, EPA has implemented five of those recommendationsby, among other things, taking actions to improve the risk evaluation of chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act and help oversee State Revolving Fund programs for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
In April 2019, GAO identified three additional priority recommendations for EPA, bringing the total number to 17. These 17 recommendations involve the following areas:
- assessing and controlling toxic chemicals,
- addressing data, funding, and cybersecurity issues for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and
- reducing pollution in the nation's waters.
EPA'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-19-308SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Priority Open Recommendations for Homeland Security Department
WASHINGTON, April 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security. The report (GAO-19-360SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Homeland Security".The report was sent to Kevin K. McAleenan, acting secretary of Homeland Security, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 19 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since then, DHS has implemented 4 of those recommendations by, among other ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 27 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security. The report (GAO-19-360SP) is titled "Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Homeland Security". The report was sent to Kevin K. McAleenan, acting secretary of Homeland Security, on April 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In April 2018, GAO identified 19 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since then, DHS has implemented 4 of those recommendations by, among otherthings, taking actions to improve the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' ability to detect fraud patterns across asylum applications and the U.S. Border Patrol's efforts to address tactical infrastructure requirements. The Transportation Security Administration has also limited funding for its Behavior Detection Program, consistent with our recommendation that it does so until it provides valid evidence demonstrating that behavioral indicators can be used to identify passengers who may pose a threat to aviation security. DHS also designated its headquarters consolidation program as a major acquisition, which resulted in greater departmental oversight.
In April 2019, GAO identified 11 additional priority recommendations for DHS, bringing the total number to 26. These recommendations involve the following areas:
- improving FEMA's management of the National Flood Insurance Program.
- analyzing the costs associated with future southwest border barrier segments.
- pursuing the acquisition of a new Coast Guard electronic health records system.
- establishing a plan for closing Coast Guard boat stations determined to be duplicative.
- facilitating adoption of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
- directing the Assistant Secretary for DHS's Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office to develop a strategy and implementation plan for countering chemical weapons of mass destruction.
- improving the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's monitoring of radiological shipments.
DHS'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-19-360SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on 2017 Disaster Contracting
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response to three major hurricanes in 2017, as well as the 2017 California wildfires. The report (GAO-19-281) is titled "2017 Disaster Contracting: Actions Needed to Improve the Use of Post-Disaster Contracts to Support Response and Recovery".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, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response to three major hurricanes in 2017, as well as the 2017 California wildfires. The report (GAO-19-281) is titled "2017 Disaster Contracting: Actions Needed to Improve the Use of Post-Disaster Contracts to Support Response and Recovery". 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 on Federal Spending, Oversight and Emergency Management, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, 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. 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, ranking member 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 April 24. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Following hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the 2017 California wildfires, federal agencies obligated at least $5 billion in post-disaster contracts--which are awarded after disasters hit-- to support disaster response and recovery efforts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comprised over three-quarters of reported post-disaster contract obligations as of June 30, 2018 (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-281?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
However, the full extent of post-disaster contracting related to the 2017 disasters is unknown due to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) inconsistent implementation of the criteria for closing a national interest action (NIA) code. This code allows agencies to track data on contract actions related to national emergencies, providing government-wide insight into response and recovery efforts. DHS closed the codes for Harvey and Irma on June 30, 2018, less than a year after those hurricanes hit. In contrast, the codes for prior hurricanes were open for at least five years, with Katrina remaining open for 13 years.
Based on a review of 23 contract files from FEMA, USACE, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Coast Guard, GAO identified challenges in the planning of selected contracts. For example, GAO found USACE officials were not consistently aware of the regulation that defines "local area." GAO also found that contracting officers at FEMA, USACE, and the Coast Guard did not consistently write justifications for awards to non-local vendors outside the disaster area, as required. FEMA developed guidance to address this, but the Coast Guard and USACE have not issued guidance or tools to address this requirement. Without addressing planning challenges, agencies may miss opportunities to award contracts to local businesses in the disaster area to the extent feasible and practicable, which could help jump-start the local economy."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Federal contracts play a key role in timely response and recovery efforts following disasters. While federal agencies, such as FEMA and USACE, may have advance contracts in place for obtaining goods and services following disasters, agencies may also award post-disaster contracts.
GAO was asked to review the federal government's response to three major hurricanes in 2017, as well as the 2017 California wildfires. This report addresses, among other objectives, the extent to which (1) federal agencies obligated funds on post-disaster contracts in response to the these events, and (2) selected agencies experienced challenges in the planning of selected contracts.
GAO analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation; selected a non-generalizable sample of 23 post-disaster contracts based on factors such as if the contract was set aside for award to a local contractor; reviewed federal regulations and agency guidance; and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 10 recommendations, including that DHS reopen NIA codes for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma; USACE provide guidance on the local area definition; and the Coast Guard and USACE provide guidance to ensure contracting requirements for the use of non-local vendors are met. Agencies concurred with 9 recommendations. DHS did not agree that NIA codes should be reopened. GAO continues to believe DHS should do so, to the extent practicable, as discussed in the report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-281?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Special Education
WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on factors that may account for differences in the percentage of children receiving special education services across states. The report (GAO-19-348) is titled "Special Education: Varied State Criteria May Contribute to Differences in Percentages of Children Served".The report was sent to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, on April 11. Here are excerpts ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 25 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on factors that may account for differences in the percentage of children receiving special education services across states. The report (GAO-19-348) is titled "Special Education: Varied State Criteria May Contribute to Differences in Percentages of Children Served". The report was sent to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, on April 11. Here are excerptsof summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Differences in states' eligibility criteria and the difficulty of identifying and evaluating some children suspected of having disabilities may contribute to differences in the percentages of children receiving special education services across states. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the primary federal special education law, requires states to have policies and procedures in place to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the state who need special education services are identified, located, and evaluated. These policies and procedures--known as "Child Find"--are generally implemented by local school districts (see fig.). IDEA gives states some latitude in setting eligibility criteria and defining disability categories. In addition, states may determine their own processes for identifying and evaluating children. As a result, a child eligible for services in one state might be ineligible in another. According to advocates, special education subject matter specialists, and state and local officials GAO interviewed, a number of challenges related to correctly identifying and evaluating children suspected of having a disability can affect eligibility decisions. For example, school district officials in all four states GAO visited cited challenges in properly identifying and evaluating English Learner students, as districts do not always have staff who are conversant in a child's first language and skilled in distinguishing language proficiency from disabilities.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-348?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports Child Find efforts primarily by reviewing states' annual performance data and providing professional development and technical assistance. The four states GAO visited reported monitoring and supporting school districts' efforts in a similar manner to Education's."
Why GAO Did This Study: "About 13 percent of children aged 3 through 21 enrolled in public schools received special education services in school year 2015-16, and about 3 percent of children from birth through age 2 received special education services. The percentage of the population served under IDEA varies across states. For example, in fall 2016, the percentages of the population aged 6 through 21 served in individual states ranged from 6.4 percent to 15.1 percent. Concerns about the difficulties identifying and evaluating children for special education have been raised by the media, experts, and special education advocates.
GAO was asked to examine how states implement Child Find and how Education monitors it. This report examines (1) factors that may account for differences in the percentage of children receiving special education services across states, and (2) how Education and selected states monitor and support Child Find efforts.
GAO reviewed federal special education data, agency documentation, federal laws and regulations, and selected state laws; and interviewed Education officials, officials from four state agencies and 15 school districts in those states (Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New York), and representatives of organizations that advocate for families of individuals with disabilities as well as special education subject matter specialists. GAO selected the four states based on a variety of factors, including the percentage of special education students."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-348?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Oversight of Health Care for American Indian, Alaska Native Veterans
WASHINGTON, April 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service oversight and coordination of health care for American Indian and Alaska Native veterans. The report (GAO-19-291) is titled "VA and Indian Health Service: Actions Needed to Strengthen Oversight and Coordination of Health Care for American Indian and Alaska Native Veterans".The report was sent to Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service oversight and coordination of health care for American Indian and Alaska Native veterans. The report (GAO-19-291) is titled "VA and Indian Health Service: Actions Needed to Strengthen Oversight and Coordination of Health Care for American Indian and Alaska Native Veterans". The report was sent to Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on March 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with thereport.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS) established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve the health status of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) veterans through coordination and resource sharing among VA, IHS, and tribes. Since GAO's last report on the topic in 2014, VA and IHS have continued to jointly oversee the implementation of their MOU--for example, through joint workgroups and quarterly meetings and reports--but they lack sufficient measures for assessing progress towards MOU goals. Specifically, while the agencies established 15 performance measures, they did not establish targets against which performance could be measured. For example, while the number of shared VA-IHS trainings and webinars is a performance measure, there is no target for the number of shared trainings VA and IHS plan to complete each year. GAO's work on best practices for measuring program performance has found that measures should have quantifiable targets to help assess whether goals and objectives were achieved by comparing projected performance and actual results. VA and IHS officials said they are currently in the process of revising the MOU and updating the performance measures used. However, officials have not indicated that any revised measures will include targets.
Total reimbursements by VA for care provided to AI/AN veterans increased by about 75 percent from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2018. This increase mainly reflects the growth in reimbursement from VA to tribal health program facilities--facilities that receive funding from IHS, but are operated by tribes or tribal organizations. Similarly, the number of VA's reimbursement agreements with tribal health programs and the number of AI/AN veterans served under the reimbursement agreements also increased during this period.
The VA, IHS, and tribal facility officials GAO spoke with described several key challenges related to coordinating care for AI/AN veterans. For example, facilities reported conflicting information about the process for referring AI/AN veterans from IHS or tribal facilities to VA, and VA headquarters officials confirmed that there is no national policy or guide on this topic. One of the leading collaboration practices identified by GAO is to have written guidance and agreements to document how agencies will collaborate. Without a written policy or guidance about how referrals from IHS and tribal facilities to VA facilities should be managed, the agencies cannot ensure that VA, IHS, and tribal facilities have a consistent understanding of the options available for referrals of AI/AN veterans to VA specialty care. This could result in an AI/AN veteran receiving, and the federal government paying for, duplicative tests if the veteran is reassessed by VA primary care before being referred to specialty care."
Why GAO Did This Study: "A 2010 MOU set mutual goals for VA and IHS collaboration and coordination related to serving AI/AN veterans. Under this MOU, VA has established reimbursement agreements with IHS and tribal health programs to pay for care provided to AI/AN veterans. In 2013 and 2014, GAO issued two reports on VA and IHS implementation and oversight of the MOU.
GAO was asked to provide updated information related to the agencies' MOU oversight. This report examines (1) VA and IHS oversight of MOU implementation since 2014, (2) the use of reimbursement agreements to pay for AI/AN veterans' care since 2014, and (3) key issues identified by selected VA, IHS, and tribal health program facilities related to coordinating AI/AN veterans' care.
To conduct this work, GAO reviewed VA and IHS documents, reports, and reimbursement data from 2014 through 2018. GAO interviewed VA and IHS officials at the headquarters level, and officials at 15 VA, IHS, and tribal facilities in four states--Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oklahoma--selected based on factors including the number of reported AI/AN veterans served, and geographic diversity. GAO also interviewed organizations representing tribes and tribal health programs."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations--one each to VA and IHS to establish measurable targets for performance measures and one to VA to establish written guidance for referring AI/AN veterans to VA facilities for specialty care. VA and HHS concurred with these recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-291?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
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