Targeted News Service

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 Child Care, Development Fund

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. The report (GAO-19-222R) is titled "Child Care and Development Fund: Subsidy Receipt and Plans for New Funds".

The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House on Education ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. The report (GAO-19-222R) is titled "Child Care and Development Fund: Subsidy Receipt and Plans for New Funds". The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Virginia, chairman, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House on Educationand Labor Committee, on Feb. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "An estimated one-quarter of children eligible for child care subsidies under state eligibility rules received them (2.1 million of the 8.4 million children in an average month estimated to be eligible under state rules), according to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) analysis of data from fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which such analysis is available. This represented 15 percent of all children estimated to be eligible under federal rules, as generally, fewer families qualify for subsidies under state eligibility rules than under federal eligibility rules since most states use flexibility provided by HHS to set their income eligibility limits below the federal maximum.

HHS also estimated that, among families who met federal eligibility criteria, children from lower-income families were more likely to receive child care subsidies compared to children from higher-income families. These estimates also showed that preschool-aged children were more likely to receive subsidies compared to older, school-aged children. For example, 45 percent of 5-year-old children from families with incomes below the federal poverty line received subsidies, while 11 percent of 5-year-olds with family incomes between 150 and 199 percent of poverty received subsidies. Additionally, 51 percent of 3-year-olds from families with incomes below the federal poverty line received subsidies, while 29 percent of 6- to 9-year-old children with family incomes below the poverty line received subsidies.

In GAO's survey of 51 state Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administrators, almost all states (44) reported they expect to spend the new discretionary CCDF funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, on at least one of several state child care activities related to requirements of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended (CCDBG Act). The most frequently reported activities were spending toward child care provider payment rates and parental copayments, professional development of the child care workforce, and consumer education. For example, under the CCDBG Act, states must certify that their child care provider payment rates are sufficient to ensure that children eligible for subsidies have the same access to child care services as children who are not eligible for CCDF subsidies. Officials in two states told GAO the state plans to use these funds to increase payment rates for subsidized child care providers who provide nighttime and weekend care, in an effort to promote access to child care for families with nontraditional work hours. Three-quarters of states GAO surveyed (38) also reported they expect to spend the new funds on at least one additional state child care activity that is not explicitly required. The activities most frequently cited were spending on a tiered quality rating system, child care resource and referral system, and for quality activities beyond the required minimum. In addition, nearly one-third of states (16) reported in GAO's survey that they plan to use new CCDF funds to pay for subsidies for children on their wait lists to receive child care. States may use a wait list when they do not have sufficient CCDF funds to provide subsidies to all eligible families that apply. However, some state CCDF administrators expressed uncertainty about their states' plans for using the new CCDF funds. For example, officials in more than one-third of states GAO interviewed (6) said they were still in the process of deciding how to spend the new funds."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal child care subsidy program known as CCDF is the primary source of federal funding dedicated to assisting low-income families who are working or participating in education and training by increasing their access to quality child care. Discretionary funding for CCDF, which is administered by HHS, is authorized by the CCDBG Act. The Act also includes various requirements for states, including spending a minimum amount on activities designed to improve the quality of child care services. In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 was enacted, which provided $5.2 billion in discretionary CCDF funding for fiscal year 2018, approximately twice the amount provided in fiscal year 2017.

The CCDBG Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to review every 2 years the number of families eligible to receive assistance under the CCDBG Act, as well as those who have applied for assistance and those who have been placed on a wait list for assistance. To address this provision, this report describes (1) what is known from the most recent data available from HHS about the extent to which eligible children received child care subsidies and their characteristics, and (2) how states plan to use the increase in CCDF funding from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, including addressing wait lists."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-222R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Civilian Marksmanship Program

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on certain matters related to Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-287) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Information on the Sale of Surplus Army Firearms".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense,Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on certain matters related to Civilian Marksmanship Program. The report (GAO-19-287) is titled "Civilian Marksmanship Program: Information on the Sale of Surplus Army Firearms". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense,Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep.Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation that, among other things, instructs U.S. citizens in marksmanship; promotes practice and safety in the use of firearms; and sells surplus Army firearms (see figure), ammunition, repair parts, and other supplies. CMP is required to give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible. CMP also charges fees for individuals to participate in some of its programs.

(Figure Omitted)

The Army and CMP have established procedures to address federal requirements for the transfer and sale of surplus firearms. Both organizations established procedures to carry out the transfer of surplus Army firearms as identified in a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a 2018 Memorandum of Agreement, both between the Army and CMP. To address requirements for selling surplus firearms, CMP uses a combination of procedures, including an application requiring prospective customers to provide proof of citizenship and age, among other things, and a check against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Per the MOU, the Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command oversees the Army's costs and reimbursements from CMP for certain costs associated with storing, transporting, and administering the transfer of surplus firearms.

The primary source of CMP's revenues from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 was from the sale of surplus rifles, which, according to CMP's internal financial documents, generated $196.8 million in revenue. CMP also sold commercial ammunition and memorabilia, which, according to the same documents, generated $76.4 million in revenue. Further, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings for this time frame, CMP reported earning $49.8 million in interest and dividends from its investment account. CMP began selling surplus M1911 handguns in November 2018 and had just begun generating revenue from these sales at the time of GAO's review. The profit that CMP realized from the sales of surplus rifles could not be determined because CMP's methodology to calculate expenses did not account for all of CMP's costs associated with the sale of these rifles. GAO estimates future sales of CMP's surplus handgun and rifles currently available for sale could generate as much as $104.9 million, or enough to fund CMP's operations for several years. Further, as of September 30, 2017, CMP reported having cash of $3.6 million, and an investment account valued at $188.6 million. This could also allow CMP to continue operations for several years."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1996, the Army has transferred more than 700,000 surplus rifles and handguns to CMP. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1996 authorized CMP to sell certain types of surplus Army firearms to U.S. citizens, including M1 .30 caliber rifles. CMP reimburses the Army for the costs to prepare and transport surplus firearms to CMP.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 required the Army during fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to transfer to CMP surplus M1911 .45 caliber handguns, including not fewer than 8,000 in fiscal year 2018 and not more than 10,000 in any fiscal year, and included a provision for GAO to conduct a review of certain matters related to CMP. Among other things, GAO examined (1) the Army and CMP's procedures to address requirements governing the transfer and sale of firearms and (2) CMP's primary sources of revenue, costs and profits, and estimated future revenue associated with the sale of surplus firearms.

GAO reviewed applicable federal statutes and agreements between the Army and CMP; analyzed firearms transfer data, and CMP's Internal Revenue Service filings and internal financial documents; and visited both CMP's northern headquarters in Port Clinton, Ohio and its southern headquarters in Anniston, Alabama."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-287?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on DOD Overpayments to Service Members

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. The report (GAO-19-61) is titled "Department of Defense: Process Improvements Needed in Recouping Overpayments to Service Members".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 15. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. The report (GAO-19-61) is titled "Department of Defense: Process Improvements Needed in Recouping Overpayments to Service Members". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 15. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Key aspects of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Debt Collection Regulation--which includes rules for recoupment of service member overpayments--are incomplete or unclear. For example, the regulation requires that certain pieces of information be included in the letter notifying service members of DOD-related debts. However, we found that the letter's template in the Debt Collection Regulation is missing two of the required pieces of information, including that any portion of a debt remaining at the time of separation may be collected from the service member's final pay and allowances. Additionally, the regulation does not clearly state whether or when to suspend collection actions during the review process for service members formally disputing their debt. As a result, the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)--which carry out the regulation--do not have clear direction when administering debt collection activities, which has led to inconsistent application. Further, service members may not be fully informed of the rights and protections to which they are entitled.

GAO also found that the military services' debt collection policies and procedures do not consistently follow the DOD Debt Collection Regulation. Specifically, debt notification letters that GAO reviewed did not consistently include all 18 pieces of information required by the DOD Debt Collection Regulation. For example, letters did not explain service members' right to a written decision of a review or their right to inspect and copy records related to the debt. Further, the military services' policies and procedures often were not current, complete, or clear. As a result, some service members may not have been properly notified of their debt, their rights to dispute it, or the potential consequences of inaction, such as involuntary payroll deduction. Unless the military services and DFAS fully incorporate the DOD Debt Collection Regulation into their respective policies and procedures, service members will likely continue to receive inaccurate and incomplete information about their debts and related rights and protections."

Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD sometimes overpays service members due to errors in administrative processing of pay and allowances, and calculating pay and leave. Nearly 400 Debt Collection Offices in DOD are responsible for the recovery and collection of debts (see figure for basic elements of the debt collection process). DOD has acknowledged that collection actions related to overpayments have placed undue burden on service members and their families, such as financial hardship, garnished wages, and damaged credit scores.

(Figure omitted)

House Report 115-200 accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to study DOD's process for recoupment of service member overpayments. This report evaluates the extent to which (1) the DOD Debt Collection Regulation is clear, and (2) military services' and DFAS policies and procedures follow DOD Debt Collection Regulation. GAO reviewed DOD regulations on debt collection, interviewed DOD officials, and examined non-generalizable samples of debt notification letters sent to serving and separated service members between January 2016 and May 2018."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations to DOD to help ensure its debt collection regulations, policies, and procedures are clear and carried out consistently. DOD concurred with all of the recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-61?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on FDIC Funds' Financial Audit

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation funds' financial audit. The report (GAO-19-295R) is titled "Financial Audit: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Funds' 2018 and 2017 Financial Statements".

The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Feb. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation funds' financial audit. The report (GAO-19-295R) is titled "Financial Audit: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Funds' 2018 and 2017 Financial Statements". The report was sent to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman, and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Feb.14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "GAO found (1) the financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) Resolution Fund (FRF) as of and for the years ended December 31, 2018, and 2017, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting relevant to the DIF and to the FRF as of December 31, 2018; and (3) with respect to the DIF and to the FRF, no reportable instances of noncompliance for 2018 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested.

In commenting on a draft of this report, FDIC stated that it was pleased to receive unmodified opinions on the DIF's and the FRF's financial statements, and noted that GAO reported that FDIC had effective internal control over financial reporting and that there was no reportable noncompliance with tested provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. FDIC also stated that it recognizes the important role a strong internal control program plays in an agency achieving its mission and that it remains committed to ensuring sound financial management remains a top priority."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Section 17 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, requires GAO to annually audit the financial statements of the DIF and of the FRF. In addition, the Government Corporation Control Act requires that FDIC annually prepare and submit audited financial statements to Congress, and provides GAO authority to perform the audit. This report responds to these requirements."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-295R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Nuclear Waste

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's cleanup agreements. The report (GAO-19-207) is titled "Nuclear Waste: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Oversight of Cleanup Milestones".

The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairman, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The cleanup process at the 16 sites overseen by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's cleanup agreements. The report (GAO-19-207) is titled "Nuclear Waste: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Oversight of Cleanup Milestones". The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairman, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Feb. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The cleanup process at the 16 sites overseen by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Officeof Environmental Management (EM) is governed by 72 agreements and hundreds of milestones specifying actions EM is to take as it carries out its cleanup work. However, EM headquarters and site officials do not consistently track data on the milestones. EM headquarters and site officials provided GAO with different totals on the number of milestones in place at the four sites GAO selected for review. These discrepancies result from how headquarters and selected sites define and track milestones. First, not all sites make the same distinction between major (i.e., related to on-the-ground cleanup) and non-major milestones and, as a result, are not consistently reporting the same milestones to EM headquarters. Second, sites do not consistently provide EM headquarters with the most up-to-date information on the status of milestones at each site. These inconsistencies limit EM's ability to use milestones to manage the cleanup mission and monitor its progress.

EM does not accurately track met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at the four selected sites, and EM's milestone reporting to Congress is incomplete. EM sites renegotiate milestone dates before they are missed, and EM does not track the history of these changes. This is because once milestones change, sites are not required to maintain or track the original milestone dates. GAO has previously found that without a documented and consistently-applied schedule change control process, program staff may continually revise the schedule to match performance, hindering management's insight into the true performance of the project. Further, since 2011, EM has not consistently reported to Congress on the status of the milestones each year, as required, and the information it has reported is incomplete. EM reports the most recently renegotiated milestone dates with no indication of whether or how often those milestones have been missed or postponed. Since neither EM headquarters nor the sites track renegotiated milestones and their baseline dates at the sites, milestones do not provide a reliable measure of program performance.

EM officials at headquarters and selected sites have not conducted root cause analyses on missed or postponed milestones; thus, such analyses are not part of milestone negotiations. Specifically, EM has not done a complex-wide analysis of the reasons for missed or postponed milestones. Similarly, officials GAO interviewed at the four selected sites said that they were not aware of any site-wide review of why milestones were missed or postponed. Best practices for project and program management outlined in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide note the importance of identifying root causes of problems that lead to schedule delays. Additionally, in a 2015 directive, DOE emphasized the importance of conducting such analysis. Analyzing the root causes of missed or postponed milestones would better position EM to address systemic problems and consider those problems when renegotiating milestones with regulators. Without such analysis, EM and its cleanup regulators lack information to set more realistic and achievable milestones and, as a result, future milestones are likely to continue to be pushed back, further delaying the cleanup work. As GAO has reported previously, these delays lead to increases in the overall cost of the cleanup."

Why GAO Did This Study: "EM manages DOE's radioactive and hazardous waste cleanup program using compliance agreements negotiated between DOE and other federal and state agencies. Within the agreements, milestones outline cleanup work to be accomplished by specific deadlines. EM's cleanup program faces nearly $500 billion in future environmental liability, which has grown substantially.

GAO was asked to review DOE's cleanup agreements. This report examines the extent to which EM (1) tracks the milestones in cleanup agreements for EM's cleanup sites; (2) has met, missed, or postponed cleanup-related milestones at selected sites and how EM reports information; and (3) has analyzed why milestones are missed or postponed and how EM considers those reasons when renegotiating milestones.

GAO reviewed agreements and milestones at EM's 16 cleanup sites and compared information tracked by EM headquarters and these sites; interviewed officials from four selected sites (chosen for variation in location and scope of cleanup, among other factors); and reviewed EM guidance related to milestone negotiations."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that EM establish a standard definition of milestones across the cleanup sites, track and report original and renegotiated milestone dates, and identify the root causes of why milestones are missed or postponed. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE agreed with three of the recommendations and partially agreed with a fourth."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-207?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Internet Privacy

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal oversight of Internet privacy. The report (GAO-19-52) is titled "Internet Privacy: Additional Federal Authority Could Enhance Consumer Protection and Provide Flexibility".

The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The United States does not have a comprehensive Internet privacy law governing the collection, use, and sale or other disclosure of consumers' ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal oversight of Internet privacy. The report (GAO-19-52) is titled "Internet Privacy: Additional Federal Authority Could Enhance Consumer Protection and Provide Flexibility". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The United States does not have a comprehensive Internet privacy law governing the collection, use, and sale or other disclosure of consumers'personal information. At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently has the lead in overseeing Internet privacy, using its statutory authority under the FTC Act to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices. However, to date FTC has not issued regulations for Internet privacy other than those protecting financial privacy and the Internet privacy of children, which were required by law. For FTC Act violations, FTC may promulgate regulations but is required to use procedures that differ from traditional notice-and-comment processes and that FTC staff said add time and complexity.

In the last decade, FTC has filed 101 enforcement actions regarding Internet privacy; nearly all actions resulted in settlement agreements requiring action by the companies. In most of these cases, FTC did not levy civil penalties because it lacked such authority for those particular violations. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has had a limited role in overseeing Internet privacy. From 2015 to 2017, FCC asserted jurisdiction over the privacy practices of Internet service providers. In 2016, FCC promulgated privacy rules for Internet service providers that Congress later repealed. FTC resumed privacy oversight of Internet service providers in June 2018.

Stakeholders GAO interviewed had varied views on the current Internet privacy enforcement approach and how it could be enhanced. Most Internet industry stakeholders said they favored FTC's current approach--direct enforcement of its unfair and deceptive practices statutory authority, rather than promulgating and enforcing regulations implementing that authority. These stakeholders said that the current approach allows for flexibility and that regulations could hinder innovation. Other stakeholders, including consumer advocates and most former FTC and FCC commissioners GAO interviewed, favored having FTC issue and enforce regulations. Some stakeholders said a new data-protection agency was needed to oversee consumer privacy. Stakeholders identified three main areas in which Internet privacy oversight could be enhanced:

* Statute. Some stakeholders told GAO that an overarching Internet privacy statute could enhance consumer protection by clearly articulating to consumers, industry, and agencies what behaviors are prohibited.

* Rulemaking . Some stakeholders said that regulations can provide clarity, enforcement fairness, and flexibility. Officials from two other consumer protection agencies said their rulemaking authority assists in their oversight efforts and works together with enforcement actions.

* Civil penalty authority. Some stakeholders said FTC's Internet privacy enforcement could be more effective with authority to levy civil penalties for first-time violations of the FTC Act.

Comprehensive Internet privacy legislation that establishes specific standards and includes traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking and broader civil penalty authority could enhance the federal government's ability to protect consumer privacy."

Why GAO Did This Study: "In April 2018, Facebook disclosed that a Cambridge University researcher may have improperly shared the data of up to 87 million of its users with a political consulting firm. This disclosure followed other recent incidents involving the misuse of consumers' personal information from the Internet, which is used by about three-quarters of Americans. GAO was asked to review federal oversight of Internet privacy. This report addresses, among other objectives: (1) how FTC and FCC have overseen consumers' Internet privacy and (2) selected stakeholders' views on the strengths and limitations of how Internet privacy currently is overseen and how, if it all, this approach could be enhanced.

GAO evaluated FTC and FCC Internet privacy enforcement actions and authorities and interviewed representatives from industry, consumer advocacy groups, and academia; FTC and FCC staff; former FTC and FCC commissioners; and officials from other federal oversight agencies. Industry stakeholders were selected to represent different sectors, and academics were selected because of their expertise in privacy, consumer protection, and regulatory issues."

What GAO Recommends: "Congress should consider developing comprehensive legislation on Internet privacy that would enhance consumer protections and provide flexibility to address a rapidly evolving Internet environment. Issues that should be considered include what authorities agencies should have in order to oversee Internet privacy, including appropriate rulemaking authority."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-52?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Military Courts

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense currently facilitates public access to proceedings. The report (GAO-19-283) is titled "Military Courts: DOD Should Assess the Tradeoffs Associated With Expanding Public Access to and Information About Terrorism Trials".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services ... Show Full Article

GAO Issues Report on Contractor Business Systems

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. The report (GAO-19-212) is titled "Contractor Business Systems: DOD Needs Better Information to Monitor and Assess Review Process".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how the Department of Defense implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. The report (GAO-19-212) is titled "Contractor Business Systems: DOD Needs Better Information to Monitor and Assess Review Process". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommitteeon Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, on Feb. 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Since 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented several changes to its processes for reviewing contractor business systems--which include systems such as accounting, estimating, and purchasing. Among other changes, DOD:

- clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)--the two agencies that are responsible for conducting the reviews;

- clarified timeframes for business system reviews and established criteria for business systems; and

- withheld payments from contractors that were found to have significant deficiencies in their business systems.

DOD does not have a mechanism to monitor and ensure that these reviews are being conducted in a timely manner. For its part, DCAA has conducted few business system audits since 2013, as it focused its efforts on other types of audits. DCAA plans to significantly increase the number of business system audits over the next 4 years, but its success in doing so depends on its ability to shift resources from other audits; to use public accounting firms to conduct other, non-business system audits; and DCAA staff's ability to execute new audit plans in a timely manner.

DCMA relies on the three offices responsible for conducting DCMA-led reviews to manage the reviews, but DCMA does not formally monitor whether these reviews are being conducted consistent with policy nor does it monitor DCAA's efforts to complete the audits for which it is responsible. DCMA is ultimately responsible for approving a contractor's business systems. DCMA currently lacks a mechanism based on relevant and reliable information, such as the number of reviews that are outstanding and the resources available to conduct such reviews, to ensure reviews are being completed in a timely fashion. Such information could help inform more strategic oversight on whether the current review process is achieving its intended results, or whether additional changes to the timing of or criteria for conducting reviews are needed.:

Why GAO Did This Study: "Contractor business systems produce critical data that contracting officers use to help negotiate and manage defense contracts. These systems and their related internal controls act as important safeguards against fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funding. Federal and defense acquisition regulations and DOD policies require that DOD take steps to review the adequacy of certain business systems, but GAO and other oversight entities have raised questions about the sufficiency and consistency of DOD's review process.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 contained a provision for GAO to evaluate how DOD implemented legislation intended to improve its business system review process. Among other things, this report examines (1) the changes DOD made to its review process and (2) the extent to which DOD is ensuring timely business system reviews.

GAO analyzed DOD acquisition regulations, policies, and procedures for conducting contractor business system reviews and analyzed data on reviews conducted between fiscal years 2013 and 2018."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DCMA, in collaboration with DCAA, develop a mechanism to monitor and ensure contractor business system reviews are conducted in a timely fashion. DOD concurred with the recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-212?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Presidential Security

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-246) is titled "Presidential Security: Vetting of Individuals and Secure Areas at Mar-a-Lago".

The report was sent to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-246) is titled "Presidential Security: Vetting of Individuals and Secure Areas at Mar-a-Lago". The report was sent to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse,D-Rhode Island, and Rep. Ted W. Lieu, D-California, on Jan. 23. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The U.S. Secret Service (Secret Service) vets individuals differently depending on the person's expected proximity to the President when he travels, including during his visits to Mar-a-Lago. According to Secret Service officials, vetting may include using physical screening (measures to detect physical threats to the president and secure the property) and background checks intended to identify individuals who have prior criminal activity or present other types of threats. Individuals at Mar-a-Lago who are not expected to meet with the President or enter spaces the President may visit pass through an outer layer of security consisting of physical screening checkpoints surrounding the property. The Secret Service physically screens all individuals who will access areas where the President will be present, such as a dining room. According to Secret Service officials, individuals who have a meeting with the President generally undergo both physical screening and enhanced background checks.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Secret Service coordinate to establish and secure several areas that are suitable for handling classified information when the President travels to Mar-a-Lago. These areas include a conference center, spaces used by staff of the National Security Council and the Executive Office of the President, and presidential transportation vehicles. Details associated with these areas and facilities are sensitive and have been omitted from this report.

The Secret Service and DOD are subject to regulations that govern the reimbursement of employees for official travel expenses. Both organizations have processes to review these travel-related expenses when their personnel travel with the President and try to acquire lodging at the General Services Administration's per diem lodging rate. When the Secret Service is not able to acquire rooms at the per diem lodging rate, including when it needs rooms for operational purposes that exceed 300 percent of the per diem rate (a threshold set by the General Services Administration), employees must submit a waiver request. DOD personnel must also obtain approval when costs exceed the General Services Administration's lodging rate. Our review of DOD vouchers and Secret Service documentation confirmed that personnel did not exceed the 300 percent threshold for lodging during the Mar-a-Lago trips examined in this review. We assessed the costs of Presidential travel in a separate report."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The President has made numerous trips to the Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida, during which he met with foreign leaders and conducted presidential activities.

GAO was asked to review the establishment of secure areas for use by the President at Mar-a-Lago. This report provides information on, "among other things, (1) vetting of individuals expected to be near the President; (2) efforts to establish secure areas for handling classified information; and (3) regulations and processes for agency expenditures on employees who travel with the President. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in October 2018. Information that the Secret Service and DOD deemed sensitive has been omitted.

GAO analyzed laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; reviewed agreements between federal agencies and trip after-action reports; and interviewed DOD and Secret Service officials. GAO also reviewed vouchers from the four presidential trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3, 2017 through March 5, 2017.GAO also reviewed documentation and descriptions of specific security practices with DOD and Secret Service officials. The Executive Office of the President has not responded to requests regarding its role in assisting DOD and the Secret Service in carrying out their responsibilities."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-246?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Unmanned Aerial Systems

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on career advancement for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft pilots compared to other pilots. The report (GAO-19-155) is titled "Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on career advancement for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft pilots compared to other pilots. The report (GAO-19-155) is titled "Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ArmedServices Committee, on Feb. 7. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The promotion rates for Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) pilots have been generally similar to those of other pilots since 2013 and have increased over time. See figure below for promotion rates from major to lieutenant colonel. Air Force officials stated that RPA pilot promotion rates increased because the creation of a dedicated career field resulted in more competitive candidates.

(Figure omitted)

Note: The Air Force held two promotion boards in 2006 noted as "A" and "B," for major to lieutenant colonel.

Since 2013, over 75 percent of non-operational staff positions requiring RPA pilot expertise were assigned to various organizations within the Air Force, according to GAO's analysis. These positions carry out support and other noncombat-related activities as well as training functions and are essential to the development of officers. However, the overall number of these positions that require a RPA pilot is about one-tenth of the combined number of those requiring other pilots. For example, in fiscal year 2018, 83 non-operational staff positions required RPA pilots compared to 330 requiring fighter pilots. Air Force officials stated that the small number of RPA positions is because the career field is new.

The Air Force has not reviewed its oversight process to ensure that it is efficiently managing its non-operational staff positions that require aviator expertise. Air Force officials explained that over the last 10 years, the Air Force reduced the number of squadrons but had not reviewed the number of non-operational staff positions. Similarly, the Air Force has had no widely accessible oversight process to monitor whether it had established an accurate number of non-operational staff positions required to support the new RPA career field. In August 2018, the Air Force identified 513 non-operational staff positions (out of 2,783) as needing further review because they lacked adequate justification of the need for aviator expertise. Officials described the process for managing these positions as time and labor intensive, which can cause delays in obtaining reliable information needed to inform decision-making. By reviewing this process, the Air Force may be able to identify opportunities to create efficiencies and more effectively manage its non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise."

Why GAO Did This Study: "An increasing number of Air Force missions use unmanned aerial systems, or RPAs, to provide their specialized capabilities in support of combat operations. The demand for crew members for these systems has grown rapidly. For example, RPA pilot requirements increased by 76 percent since fiscal year 2013 while those for fighter pilots stayed about the same. These requirements include pilots who serve in non-operational staff positions, such as trainers.

Senate Report 115-125 included a provision that GAO review career advancement for Air Force RPA pilots compared to other pilots. This report, among other things, describes (1) the rates that RPA and other pilots were promoted; (2) the rates that non-operational staff positions requiring RPA pilot expertise were assigned to various organizations, and (3) the extent to which the Air Force has reviewed its oversight process to effectively manage non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise.

Among other things, GAO analyzed Air Force pilot promotion data from 2006-2017. GAO also analyzed non-operational staff position data from fiscal years 2013-2018 and interviewed officials regarding the management and oversight of these positions."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Air Force review its oversight process for managing the non-operational staff positions, including those for RPA pilots, to identify opportunities to increase efficiencies. DOD concurred with this recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-155?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Foreign Military Sales

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. The report (GAO-19-214) is titled "Foreign Military Sales: Observations on DOD's Approach to Developing Price and Availability Estimates for Foreign Customers".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the Senate ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. The report (GAO-19-214) is titled "Foreign Military Sales: Observations on DOD's Approach to Developing Price and Availability Estimates for Foreign Customers". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James E. Risch, R-Idaho, chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, ranking member of the SenateForeign Relations Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, chairman, and Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on Feb. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) reported receiving 3,038 requests for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) price and availability data in fiscal years 2014 through 2018 from 93 countries across six geographic regions, as shown in the figure. Foreign customer requests included services and items such as training and support services for weapon systems, missiles, aircraft, and communication equipment.

(Figure Omitted)

DOD officials indicated they generally strove to offer price and availability data that reflected rough order of magnitude estimates of total anticipated costs for a complete and sustainable capability. Contractors often provide input to DOD for these cost and schedule estimates. In the five examples GAO reviewed, DOD officials considered factors such as possible production delays and included anticipated costs for support services, operations, and sustainment, when needed. DOD officials also included FMS administrative charges and, as applicable, nonrecurring and transportation costs. GAO found that when DOD considered these factors in developing the response to the customer, at times, they made adjustments to the estimates provided by contractors to more fully reflect expected costs if the items are purchased.

Among the five examples, GAO found that response times ranged from 45 to 320 days and that a number of factors can affect timeliness. For example, the complexity of the system or capability the customer is interested in acquiring may require involvement from multiple program offices and defense contractors, requiring more time than the 45 days suggested by DOD's guidance."

Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD manages the procurement of billions of dollars in defense items and services on behalf of foreign customers through the FMS program. These sales help support the defense industrial base and are vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

The FMS process generally begins with a request by a foreign government for information about a U.S. defense item or service. Requests for price and availability data are an optional step in the process. DOD guidance is to generally respond to such requests within 45 days.

The fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review DOD's process for developing price and availability data for foreign customers. This report addresses, among other objectives, (1) price and availability requests DOD received from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, (2) how DOD develops price and availability data, and (3) the factors that can influence the timeliness of DOD's responses to foreign customers with price and availability data.

GAO analyzed DOD price and availability data for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the latest data available; and reviewed documents for a non-generalizable sample of five price and availability responses--varying by estimate value--provided to foreign customers by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. GAO also interviewed defense contractors and DOD officials.

GAO is not making any recommendations at this time."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-214?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Defense Management

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on information on the Department of Defense's progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in fiscals 2014-2017. The report (GAO-19-245R) is titled "Defense Management: Status of GAO Recommendations Made to the Department of Defense (Fiscal Years 2014-2017)".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on information on the Department of Defense's progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in fiscals 2014-2017. The report (GAO-19-245R) is titled "Defense Management: Status of GAO Recommendations Made to the Department of Defense (Fiscal Years 2014-2017)". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the HouseArmed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Overall, as of November 2018 the Department of Defense's (DOD) implementation of GAO's recommendations had improved from the prior year. GAO measures implementation of recommendations by calculating the percentage of recommendations implemented after 4 years. For example, the implementation rate for fiscal year (FY) 2018 is the percentage of recommendations made in FY 2014 that were implemented by the end of FY 2018. In November 2017, DODs implementation rate was 53 percent; 1 year later, it had increased to 67 percent. However, by comparison, the government-wide implementation of GAO recommendations was 77 percent, as of November 2018.

For the time period assessed (fiscal years 2014-2017), GAO found that, as of September 30, 2018, it had made a total of 1,122 recommendations to DOD in unclassified, classified (SECRET), and sensitive but unclassified reports issued in fiscal years 2014-2017. Of these 1,122 recommendations, 464 were implemented (about 41 percent), 63 were closed by GAO as not implemented (about 6 percent), and 595 remained open (about 53 percent). Further, of the 546 unclassified recommendations made to DOD during this same period that were still open, DOD concurred with 359 (about 66 percent), partially concurred with 137 (about 25 percent), and non-concurred with 50 (about 9 percent). Finally, GAO designated 68 recommendations from this period as priority recommendations. Priority recommendations are those recommendations that GAO believes warrant priority attention from heads of key departments and agencies. As of September 30, 2018, 18 (about 26 percent) priority recommendations had been implemented, 2 (about 3 percent) had been closed by GAO as not implemented because DOD actions had made these recommendations no longer applicable, and 48 (about 71 percent) remained open. Detailed information on the status of unclassified recommendations can be obtained at https://www.gao.gov/recommendations."

Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO's mission is to support the Congress, and in accomplishing that mission GAO makes recommendations to improve the accountability, operations, and services of government agencies. From 2002 through 2018, GAOs work resulted in over $895 billion in financial benefits and about 21,600 program and operational benefits that helped change laws, improved public safety and other services, and promoted better management throughout the government, including at DOD.

Conference Report 115-404 accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to submit to the Congressional Armed Services Committees a briefing summarizing an assessment of open recommendations made to DOD in fiscal years (FY) 2014 through 2017. This report summarizes information on DODs (1) progress in implementing all GAO recommendations made in FYs 2014-2017; (2) initial response to GAOs open recommendations; and (3) progress in implementing priority recommendations. For all recommendations made to DOD in unclassified, classified (SECRET and below), and sensitive but unclassified GAO reports issued in FY 2014 through FY 2017, GAO reviewed reports and interviewed or corresponded with cognizant DOD officials to obtain information on DODs efforts to implement the recommendations, and based on information collected, determined the implementation status of each recommendation."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO did not make any recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-245R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Military Personnel

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. The report (GAO-19-160) is titled "Military Personnel: Strategy Needed to Improve Retention of Experienced Air Force Aircraft Maintainers".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. The report (GAO-19-160) is titled "Military Personnel: Strategy Needed to Improve Retention of Experienced Air Force Aircraft Maintainers". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Feb. 5. Here are excerpts ofsummaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Air Force has reduced overall aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, but continues to have a gap of experienced maintainers. The Air Force reduced the overall gap between actual maintainer staffing levels and authorized levels from 4,016 maintainers (out of 66,439 authorized active component positions) in fiscal year 2015, to 745 in fiscal year 2017 (out of 66,559 positions). However, in 7 of the last 8 fiscal years, the Air Force had staffing gaps of experienced maintainers--those who are most qualified to meet mission needs and are needed to train new maintainers. Maintainers complete technical school as 3-levels and initially lack the experience and proficiency needed to meet mission needs. Following years of on-the-job training, among other things, maintainers upgrade to the 5- and 7-levels. In fiscal year 2017, the Air Force had gaps of more than 2,000 5-level and 400 7-level maintainers, and a surplus of over 1,700 3-levels. Air Force officials anticipate that staffing gaps will continue off and on through fiscal year 2023.

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force has increasingly lost experienced aircraft maintainers, and it does not have goals and a strategy to help retain maintainers. While overall maintainer loss rates have remained generally stable, loss rates of 5-levels increased from 9 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 12 percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (see figure). Air Force officials expect 7-level loss rates to also increase. Air Force officials stated that they need to retain more maintainers to help address experience gaps, but the Air Force has not developed annual retention goals for maintainers. In addition, while the Air Force has increased its use of retention bonuses since fiscal year 2015, according to Air Force officials, it does not have a strategy to improve retention. Without goals to measure progress and a retention strategy to guide efforts, the Air Force could face further challenges in managing its maintenance workforce, including ensuring there are enough experienced maintainers to meet mission needs.

(Figure omitted)

The Air Force consistently met technical school completion rate goals for aircraft maintainers from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. In fiscal year 2017, about 9,600 active component maintainers completed technical school, an increase from about 5,700 in fiscal year 2015. This increase in completions has helped to address overall staffing gaps, but cannot immediately resolve experience imbalances, due to the time and training needed to reach the 5- and 7- levels."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Air Force aircraft maintainers are responsible for ensuring that the Air Force's aircraft are operationally ready and safe for its aviators--duties critical to successfully executing its national security mission. With more than 100,000 maintainers across the Air Force's active and reserve components, according to Air Force officials, aircraft maintenance is the Air Force's largest enlisted career field--accounting for about a quarter of its active duty enlisted personnel.

The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. This report assesses the extent to which, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the Air Force (1) had aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, (2) experienced attrition of maintainers and took steps to help retain maintainers, and (3) met its annual technical school completion rate goals for maintainers.

GAO analyzed aircraft maintainer staffing levels, loss and reenlistment rates, and technical school completion rates from fiscal years 2010-2017, the most recent data available; conducted five non-generalizable discussion groups with maintainers; and interviewed aviation industry, Department of Defense, and Air Force officials."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Air Force develop annual retention goals and a retention strategy for aircraft maintainers. The Air Force concurred with both recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-160?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Presidential Travel

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-178) is titled "Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress".

The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago. The report (GAO-19-178) is titled "Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress". The report was sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings,D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "GAO estimated that federal agencies incurred costs of about $13.6 million for the President's four trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3 through March 5, 2017. This estimate consisted of approximately $10.6 million for operating costs of government aircraft and boats and $3 million for temporary duty costs of government personnel supporting the President's travel, including transportation, lodging, and meals and incidental expenses. These figures do not include certain classified cost information or the salaries and benefits of government personnel traveling with the President because, salaries and benefits would be paid regardless of whether the President was traveling.

(Figure omitted)

Note: Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding.

The United States Secret Service (Secret Service) incurred about $396,000, primarily for temporary duty costs, while protecting Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump during three international trips taken in January and February 2017. Eric Trump traveled to Uruguay and the Dominican Republic and Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and their spouses traveled to the United Arab Emirates. Documentation provided by Secret Service officials confirmed that the Trumps and their spouses flew on commercial aircraft. Officials from the 89th Airlift Wing confirmed that no military aircraft supported these trips. Secret Service agents protecting the Trump family flew by commercial aircraft.

GAO found that, of the three agencies required to report by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, only the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) reported protection costs semiannually to Congress for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. GAO found that the Secret Service does not have a policy for ensuring that the semiannual reports are prepared and has not consistently submitted the reports. Secret Service officials last submitted reports in fiscal year 2015 and were unaware that reports had not been submitted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 until GAO requested this information. GAO also found that the Department of Defense (DOD) has a policy but did not produce and submit the reports as required. Moreover, weaknesses in DOD's existing policy and instruction do not clearly establish the responsibility for preparing and reporting the costs incurred to support protection activities. Absent clear policies with an oversight mechanism to ensure that the reports are produced, Congress has not been provided required information concerning the costs for providing protective services for the President and others."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President and his family, including adult children when they travel. The Secret Service can request assistance in its mission from other agencies, such as DOD and the Coast Guard. When the President travels, he must fly on DOD aircraft.

GAO was asked to review the travel- related costs for four trips that the President took to Mar-a-Lago and three trips that the President's adult children made to certain overseas destinations. This report examines (1) the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with the President's travel on selected trips to Mar-a-Lago, (2) the costs incurred by federal agencies associated with certain overseas trips taken by Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump, and (3) the extent to which the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and DOD have reported their costs pursuant to the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976. GAO analyzed agency cost data in connection with the President's travel to Mar-a-Lago and the President's adult children's trips to certain overseas locations. GAO also reviewed the law, agency guidance, and semiannual reports related to the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making recommendations to the Secret Service and DOD to ensure that the reports required under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, are prepared and submitted. The Department of Homeland Security and DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-178?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Offshore Oil Spills

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response, restoration and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. The report (GAO-19-31) is titled "Offshore Oil Spills: Restoration and Federal Research Efforts Continue, but Opportunities to Improve Coordination Remain".

The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The trustee councils, composed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal government's response, restoration and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. The report (GAO-19-31) is titled "Offshore Oil Spills: Restoration and Federal Research Efforts Continue, but Opportunities to Improve Coordination Remain". The report was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The trustee councils, composedof federal and state members, have used portions of the restoration trust funds from the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlements to restore natural resources. From October 1992 to January 2018, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council used about 86 percent of the fund's roughly $1 billion, primarily on habitat protection and restoration of damaged natural resources. According to the council, all but 5 of the 32 natural resources and human services identified as damaged by the spill have recovered or are recovering. The health of Pacific herring is one example of a resource that has not yet recovered. Further, the presence of lingering oil remains a concern almost 30 years after the spill. In May 2018, GAO accompanied trustee council researchers to the spill area and observed the excavation of three pits that revealed lingering oil roughly 6 inches below the surface of the beach, as captured in the photo below. The Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council finalized a programmatic restoration plan in 2016; four trustee implementation groups have since issued initial restoration plans for designated restoration areas, and three anticipate issuing restoration plans in 2019 or later. From April 2012 to December 2017, the council used 13 percent of the at least $8.1 billion restoration trust fund, mostly on habitat protection, enhancing recreation, and marine wildlife and fishery restoration.

(Photo omitted)

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which was enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (interagency committee) to coordinate oil pollution research among federal agencies and with relevant external entities, among other things. However according to the trustee council members that manage the restoration trust funds, the committee does not coordinate with the trustee councils and some were not aware that the interagency committee existed. The research of the member agencies could be relevant to the trustee councils' work on restoration. By coordinating directly with the trustee councils, the interagency committee could ensure better knowledge sharing between groups and leverage its member agencies' resources to inform and support the work of the councils."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills are two of the largest offshore oil spills in U.S. history, causing long-lasting damage to marine and coastal resources. OPA includes provisions to prevent and respond to such oil spills by authorizing (1) federal-state trustee councils that manage billions of dollars from legal settlements and (2) an interagency committee to coordinate oil pollution research, among other things.

GAO was asked to review the federal government's response, restoration, and research efforts after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. This report examines, among other things, (1) how the trustee councils have used the restoration trust funds and the status of restoration and (2) the interagency committee's coordination of oil spill research efforts.

GAO reviewed the councils' plans for the funds and how they were used, federal funding of oil spill research by member agencies, and key laws. Also, GAO evaluated the coordination of such efforts against a leading collaboration practice. GAO interviewed members of the trustee councils and the interagency committee."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends, among other things, that the interagency committee coordinate with the trustee councils to support their work and research needs. The agency agreed with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-31?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Medicaid Coverage of Abortions

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to abortion access. The report (GAO-19-159) is titled "Medicaid: CMS Action Needed to Ensure Compliance with Abortion Coverage Requirements".

The report was sent to Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, on Jan. 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Women could face various challenges accessing abortions depending on where they live, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to abortion access. The report (GAO-19-159) is titled "Medicaid: CMS Action Needed to Ensure Compliance with Abortion Coverage Requirements". The report was sent to Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, on Jan. 4. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Women could face various challenges accessing abortions depending on where they live, andMedicaid beneficiaries may face additional challenges in some states. GAO identified seven key factors that could pose challenges to women accessing abortions, based on its interviews with providers and review of the literature: gestational limits, mandatory counseling, out-of-pocket costs, parental involvement requirements, provider availability, stigma and harassment, and waiting period requirements. The presence of these factors and their effect on abortion access--such as delays in care or increased costs--varied by state.

GAO also found that state variation in Medicaid abortion coverage and payment requirements could further complicate access for program beneficiaries. State Medicaid programs are generally required to cover abortions and can seek federal funding for such coverage when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. States may also cover abortions under other circumstances, but federal funds may not be used. In GAO's survey, one state reported not covering abortions in cases of rape or incest, and 14 states reported not covering the drug used in medical abortions, which they are generally required to cover if the abortion is otherwise eligible for federal funding. Officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees Medicaid, were unaware that these states were not covering the drug, and thus, have not taken any actions to address states' non-compliance.

Federal information on the number of abortions eligible for federal Medicaid funding is incomplete, limiting CMS's ability to ensure proper payments and states' coverage of such abortions. For example, the form CMS-64, which states use to report Medicaid expenditures, does not collect information on the number of abortions paid for by managed care--the delivery system serving most Medicaid beneficiaries. It also does not include this information from 8 states that GAO identified as incorrectly reporting abortion costs on the form. While also not complete, state information reported in GAO's survey was more comprehensive, and showed a wide range in the number of abortions eligible for federal funding covered across the 42 states that reported such information."

Why GAO Did This Study: "While federal law prohibits federal funding for abortions in most circumstances, state Medicaid programs are required to cover abortions in limited circumstances. CMS is responsible for monitoring state compliance with federal requirements. However, concerns have been raised about challenges women may face obtaining Medicaid coverage for abortions eligible for federal funding, as well as with abortion access more broadly.

GAO was asked to review issues related to abortion access. This report examines (1) factors that may present challenges to women, including Medicaid beneficiaries, accessing abortions; and (2) federal and state information on the number of abortions eligible for federal Medicaid funding. GAO reviewed federal laws, regulations, and data sources; surveyed and received responses from Medicaid program officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; conducted a literature review; and interviewed CMS officials and eight abortion providers selected based on factors such as variation in Medicaid abortion coverage and geography."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to CMS to ensure state compliance with federal requirements for Medicaid abortion coverage, including coverage of the drug used for medical abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with these recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-159?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on K-12 Education

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges the Department of Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs. The report (GAO-19-266R) is titled "K-12 Education: Challenges to Assessing Program Performance and Recent Efforts to Address Them".

The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "GAO identified four key challenges the Department of Education (Education) ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on challenges the Department of Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs. The report (GAO-19-266R) is titled "K-12 Education: Challenges to Assessing Program Performance and Recent Efforts to Address Them". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO identified four key challenges the Department of Education (Education)faces in assessing K-12 program performance. Education has taken steps to mitigate these performance assessment challenges, which could improve transparency and understanding about the extent to which Educations K-12 programs are achieving their goals. Ongoing efforts to address challenges may prove particularly important given the changing education landscape under the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Oversight and monitoring. Weaknesses in Education's internal controls have hindered its oversight and monitoring of grantees and its assessments of K-12 program performance. In April 2017, GAO reported that Education's oversight of discretionary grants monitoring was limited. Some offices, including the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, did not consistently document required monitoring activities in official grant files. GAO recommended that Education establish and implement written supervisory review procedures for official grant files. In response, Education officials said they are developing a standard operating procedure for maintaining official grant records, which they plan to issue in early 2019.

Data quality. Persistent quality issues with K-12 data that grantees submit to Education have limited Education's ability to use those data to assess performance. In April 2017, GAO reported that Education lacks reasonable assurance that data submitted by grantees for its 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant program are accurate, and that these data may not be useful for decision making and reporting. GAO recommended that Education check the accuracy of federal-level data submitted by grantees. In response, Education officials said they modified and improved the agency's data system to perform these types of checks and reduce errors.

Capacity. Education's ability to oversee and monitor grantees, collect and report quality data, and use performance assessment information in decision making is directly related to its capacity and organizational resources. According to Education officials, capacity has been and remains a challenge to assessing K-12 program performance. In its 2016 report on the Rural Education Achievement Program, Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that Education's inadequate monitoring of program grantees was partly due to its limited human capital capacity. In response, Education requested additional staff and implemented a risk-based approach for selecting grantees to monitor, according to Education officials cited in the OIG report.

Methodological limitations. Education has faced methodological limitations assessing program performance, including difficulties assessing the benefits of flexible grant programs, isolating program impact, and measuring long-term outcomes. Education officials told GAO that these types of methodological challenges are difficult to address, although Education has taken steps to mitigate them. For example, GAO reported in May 2014 on the difficulty Education faces in evaluating the effectiveness of the Promise Neighborhoods program in part because the program provides certain flexibilities to grantees. Partly in response to GAO's recommendation that Education develop a plan to conduct a national evaluation of the program, Education awarded a contract in fiscal year 2018 to develop options for evaluating the program's effect on student outcomes. In November 2018, Education officials stated that they intend to award a new contract in late fiscal year 2019 to evaluate the effectiveness of the program nationwide."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Education plays a key role in supporting educational opportunities for K-12 students, including awarding grants and overseeing compliance with federal education laws. However, questions have been raised about how Education assesses program performance. Both GAO and Education's OIG have reported on various management and oversight issues related to Educations program performance. GAO was asked to review Education's K-12 program performance assessment activities and related barriers. This report describes challenges Education faces in assessing the performance of its K-12 programs, as well as steps it has taken to address them.

To identify challenges to program performance assessment and learn about how Education addressed these challenges, GAO examined documents from Education, reviewed prior GAO work on government-wide performance assessment activities and Education's K-12 programs, and interviewed Education officials. To identify specific examples of K-12 programs that illustrate each of the challenges, GAO reviewed prior related GAO reports and relevant Education OIG reports and considered the views of Education officials. Although these examples are not generalizable, they reflect a variety of K-12 programs and show a range of Education's actions in response to the challenges. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-266R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on National Nuclear Security Administration

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's progress toward implementing common financial reporting. The report (GAO-19-101) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Collect Common Financial Data".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Nuclear Security Administration's progress toward implementing common financial reporting. The report (GAO-19-101) is titled "National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Collect Common Financial Data". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, ranking member of the Senate Appropriationssubcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, chairmanwoman, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)--a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy (DOE)--and Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS)--the management and operating (M&O) contractor for the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant (Pantex) in Texas--implemented a consolidated business system for the two sites. CNS, NNSA, and DOE generally followed DOE guidance as well as leading project management and information technology investment practices for three areas of project management that may be useful in identifying problems that can arise after a system is implemented. Specifically, they (1) developed required plans and documents to support critical decisions on information technology projects, (2) generally followed leading practices for risk management, and (3) initiated a review by the investment review board during the system's operations and maintenance phase.

With regard to NNSA's broader effort to implement common financial reporting across its eight sites, GAO found that NNSA's progress on seven key implementation steps has varied (see table). For example, NNSA is not pursuing an important step to implement a common work breakdown structure--a method of dividing a project into successive levels of detail--as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (the act). All of NNSA's program offices had not accepted a common work breakdown structure, in part because program office leaders do not agree one is needed. According to GAO leading practices, not doing so causes difficulty in comparing costs across programs and contractors, which is the purpose of common financial reporting. Without pursuing this approach, the effort may not result in reliable, enterprise-wide financial data that meets the needs of Congress and improves NNSA's ability to report the total costs of its programs.

(Table omitted)

In addition, NNSA generally has not followed six project management leading practices, including one that emphasizes the importance of collecting and documenting stakeholder requirements to define project scope. NNSA officials said the act included the basic requirements and project scope, and therefore stakeholders only needed to provide input on how to meet requirements in the act rather than identify their own; this input was not documented. However, the act did not provide specific or detailed requirements. Without collecting and documenting stakeholder requirements, NNSA will not have assurances that data will meet stakeholder needs, which could limit the effectiveness of the effort."

Why GAO Did This Study: "GAO has identified challenges in determining and comparing costs across NNSA's eight sites. Congress needs this information to carry out its oversight responsibilities and make budgetary decisions. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 required NNSA to implement a common financial reporting system across all sites. Separately, in 2013, NNSA awarded a single M&O contract for the Y-12 and Pantex sites, which included a requirement to consolidate the two sites' business systems.

An explanatory statement accompanying the act included a provision for GAO to review the agency's progress. This report examines (1) the status of the effort to consolidate the business systems at Y-12 and Pantex and the extent to which CNS and NNSA followed guidance and leading practices, and (2) the steps NNSA has taken in implementing common financial reporting across all eight sites and the extent to which this effort follows leading practices. GAO reviewed documentation for both efforts and compared it with leading practices, and interviewed NNSA officials and M&O contractors."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making seven recommendations, including that NNSA should implement a common work breakdown structure and should follow leading practices to collect and document requirements to define project scope. NNSA generally agreed with six recommendations and neither agreed nor disagreed with one. GAO maintains that the recommendations are valid."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-101?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Prepositioned Stocks

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense' implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. The report (GAO-19-244) is titled "Prepositioned Stocks: DOD Needs Joint Oversight of the Military Services' Programs".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Defense' implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. The report (GAO-19-244) is titled "Prepositioned Stocks: DOD Needs Joint Oversight of the Military Services' Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, Rep. Adam Smith,D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense's (DOD) implementation plan for managing the military services' prepositioned stock programs does not fully address four of the seven elements required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014. For example, DOD's plan did not include all information required by the NDAA, such as a complete list of the services' programs, information on how DOD would pursue key initiatives, or the resources required to implement the plan. DOD officials told GAO that they developed a plan without detail to allow the services to determine for themselves how to implement their programs. However, absent an implementation plan that fully addresses NDAA requirements, DOD continues to provide incomplete information to Congress on the department's prepositioned stock programs.

Since 2011 when Congress required DOD to take action and since 2005 when GAO first reported on the issue, DOD has not fully implemented a joint oversight approach for managing prepositioned stock programs (see figure).

(Figure Omitted)

DOD's recent approach for implementing joint oversight has been to update guidance documents and develop other efforts, such as a working group, but the services continue to manage their programs with little joint oversight. Without taking steps to fully implement joint oversight, including providing detailed information on how to achieve this in guidance and reviewing other efforts, DOD's management will continue to be fragmented and it risks duplication and inefficiencies among the services' programs. Moreover, updating Congress on DOD's progress would help assure decision makers that DOD intends to follow their direction in establishing joint oversight of prepositioned stock programs."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The military services preposition stocks worth billions of dollars at strategic locations around the world to provide U.S. forces with critical assets before supply chains have been established. In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, DOD emphasized that prepositioned stocks provide key logistical support for the department's missions. For many years, GAO has identified the potential for duplication among the military services' prepositioned stock programs due to a fragmented management approach and limited joint oversight within DOD.

In the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014, Congress required DOD to develop an implementation plan to manage prepositioned stock programs. DOD finalized its plan in August 2017. The act included a provision for GAO to review the plan and report on related issues. GAO assessed the extent to which (1) DOD's implementation plan addresses mandated reporting elements and (2) DOD has made progress in implementing a joint oversight approach for managing the services' prepositioned stock programs.

GAO compared the implementation plan and DOD's joint oversight approach with congressional requirements and federal standards for internal control and interviewed DOD officials."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD provide information required by the NDAA, fully implement joint oversight of prepositioned stock programs, and update Congress on progress made. DOD concurred with all of the recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-244?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital funding and maintenance practices. The report (GAO-19-202) is titled "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Actions Needed to Strengthen Capital Planning and Track Preventive Maintenance Program".

The report was sent to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Maryland, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, Rep. Donald S Beyer Jr., D-Virginia, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital funding and maintenance practices. The report (GAO-19-202) is titled "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Actions Needed to Strengthen Capital Planning and Track Preventive Maintenance Program". The report was sent to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Maryland, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, Rep. Donald S Beyer Jr., D-Virginia,Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Maryland, Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D- District of Columbia, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland, and Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, on Jan. 31. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "From fiscal years 2011 through 2017, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) spent almost $6 billion on a variety of capital assets, with the largest share spent on improving its rail and bus fleet (see figure). Over this period, WMATA's capital spending was, on average, about $845 million annually.

(Figure Omitted)

WMATA's new capital planning process could address some weaknesses it identified in the prior process. WMATA established a framework for quantitatively prioritizing capital needs (investments to a group of related assets) over a 10-year period. However, WMATA has not established documented policies and procedures for implementing the new process, such as those for selecting specific projects for funding in its annual capital budget. WMATA is currently using its new capital planning process to make fiscal year 2020 investment decisions. WMATA has proposed a fiscal year 2020 capital budget of $1.4 billion. Without documented policies and procedures for implementing the new planning process, WMATA's stakeholders do not have reasonable assurance that WMATA is following a sound process for making investment decisions.

WMATA has made significant progress toward its track preventive maintenance program's goals, which are to reduce both track-defect and electrical-fire incidents by 50 percent in fiscal year 2019 compared with 2017. In fiscal year 2018, WMATA met its goal for reducing track defect incidents and reduced electrical fire incidents by 20 percent. However, in designing the program, WMATA did not fully assess risks. For example, WMATA did not quantitatively assess the impact of track defects or electrical fires on its ability to provide service, nor did it consider other risks such as non-electrical track fires, which represent about 30 percent of all fires on the system, or other factors, such as resources or track time. Without a comprehensive risk assessment, WMATA lacks reasonable assurance that the program is designed to address risks affecting the safety of the rail system or other risks that could hinder the new program's success."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Safety incidents in recent years on WMATA's rail system have raised questions about its processes for performing critical maintenance and replacing capital assets. WMATA initiated a new preventive maintenance program for its rail track in 2017, and is currently implementing a new capital planning process.

GAO was asked to examine issues related to WMATA's capital funding and maintenance practices. This report examines: (1) how WMATA spent its capital funds from fiscal years 2011 through 2017, (2) how WMATA's new capital planning process addresses weaknesses it identified in the prior process, and (3) WMATA's progress toward its track preventive maintenance program's goals and how the program aligns with leading program management practices. GAO analyzed WMATA's financial and program information, interviewed officials of WMATA, the Federal Transit Administration, and five transit agencies selected for similarities to WMATA. GAO compared WMATA's capital planning process and track maintenance program with leading practices."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that WMATA establish documented policies and procedures for the new capital planning process and conduct a comprehensive risk assessment for the track preventive maintenance program. WMATA described actions planned or underway to address GAO's recommendations. GAO believes the recommendations should be fully implemented, as discussed in the report."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-202?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Indian Programs

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to tribal self-government. The report (GAO-19-87) is titled "Indian Programs: Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs".

The report was sent to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "GAO found that various factors can affect tribes' use of self-determination ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to tribal self-government. The report (GAO-19-87) is titled "Indian Programs: Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs". The report was sent to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, on Jan. 3. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "GAO found that various factors can affect tribes' use of self-determinationcontracts and self-governance compacts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA), as amended, and tribal leasing under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). A key factor that helps tribes use these self-governance mechanisms is tribal government capacity to administer a federal program or manage these resources. Federal efforts that have helped build this capacity have included training, such as that offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2014 and 2015 to educate tribes on the benefits of developing tribal leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. In contrast, GAO found that other factors can hinder tribes' use of these mechanisms including:

Inadequate Information Sharing. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) policy and guidance states that tribes should be provided necessary information to design programs they would like to self-administer, such as the amount of funding available to the tribes for the programs and the amount retained by Interior for inherently federal functions. However, according to several tribal stakeholders and some BIA regional officials GAO spoke to, some of this information is not made available to the tribes prior to self-determination contract negotiations, such as information on funding calculations and determinations of inherently federal functions. Without this information, according to a tribal stakeholder, tribes may be at a disadvantage when negotiating with BIA and designing programs for self-determination contracts.

Delays in Disbursing Funds. According to tribal stakeholders, Interior's process does not ensure that funds associated with their self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts are disbursed in a timely manner. These funding delays can therefore be a factor that hinders their use of self-government mechanisms. Some tribal stakeholders said that disbursement delays have ranged from weeks to months. GAO was unable to determine the extent to which Interior disburses funds in accordance with ISDEAA or within agreed-upon time frames with the tribes, because Interior does not systematically track and monitor the disbursement of these funds.

Lengthy Review of Proposed Tribal Leasing Regulations. Interior does not have a clearly documented process for reviewing proposed tribal leasing regulations submitted under the HEARTH Act with identified time frames associated with each step of the process. As a result, tribal stakeholders told GAO that they are uncertain about how long the process will take and how it aligns with the 120 day requirement in the Act. According to tribal stakeholders and GAO's analysis of proposed regulations submitted from 2012 through 2017, Interior's review process has resulted in lengthy review times--in some cases, multiple years. Some tribal officials told GAO that Interior's lengthy review process had delayed the tribe's ability to make decisions about the use of their resources. By developing a clearly documented process that includes established time frames for each step in the review, Interior can help eliminate uncertainty and improve the transparency of the review process for the tribes."

Why GAO Did This Study: "For more than 4 decades, federal Indian policy has promoted tribal self-government--the practical exercise of Indian tribes and nations' inherent sovereign authority. Under ISDEAA, federally recognized tribes may request to enter into self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts with Interior, transferring the administration of federal programs to the tribe. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes may issue certain leases on their lands without Interior approval if such leases are executed under approved tribal regulations.

GAO was asked to evaluate issues related to tribal self-government. This report examines factors affecting tribes' use of self-determination contracts, self-governance compacts, and tribal leasing authority under the HEARTH Act. GAO reviewed key legislation and regulations, relevant literature, federal and tribal documents; analyzed agency data; and interviewed federal officials at 12 BIA regional offices, 29 tribes that used at least one of these mechanisms, and 7 tribal organizations."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations, including that Interior develop processes to share how it makes funding and inherently federal function determinations with tribes, to track and monitor the disbursement of funds within agreed upon time frames, and for the review of proposed tribal leasing regulations including review time frames. Interior concurred with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-87?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Retirement Security

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. The report (GAO-19-218R) is titled "Retirement Security: Alternate Price Indexes for Cost-of-Living Adjustments Present Tradeoffs".

The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Use of an alternate consumer price ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. The report (GAO-19-218R) is titled "Retirement Security: Alternate Price Indexes for Cost-of-Living Adjustments Present Tradeoffs". The report was sent to Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, on Jan. 28. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Use of an alternate consumer priceindex (CPI) for calculating cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would create tradeoffs regarding individual benefits and the costs for federal retirement programs, such as Social Security. Using historical and assumed future inflation, GAO analyzed the effect on retirement benefits and program costs that could result from switching to an alternate CPI from the index currently used to set COLAs, the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), and found that although the annual differences between the CPIs are relatively small, the differences accumulate over time. For example, estimates show that switching to the Chained CPI-U, which more fully incorporates consumers' ability to buy different products in response to changing prices, would result in small annual reductions in estimated COLA and program costs. Similar estimates show that switching to the CPI for the Elderly (CPI-E), which reflects spending patterns of the elderly, would result in small annual increases in estimated COLA and program costs. However, over time, these small increases accumulate. Specifically, if COLAs had been based on the Chained CPI-U or CPI-E over the 2003-2033 period, estimates based on historical and assumed future inflation show that relative to using the CPI-W, the first year's adjusted monthly benefit in 2004 would change by a few dollars or less, but that after 30 years, the monthly difference would be $100 or more for a hypothetical beneficiary who earned the average national wage.

The change in benefits resulting from using an alternate index would have the largest relative effect on beneficiaries who receive benefits the longest and those with lower incomes. This is partly because changes to the COLA accumulate over time and because lower-income beneficiaries rely more on federal retirement programs, such as Social Security. GAO estimates based on hypothetical COLAs and survey data show that the total retirement income of a household in the lowest income quintile would decrease by about 6 percent over 30 years if Social Security used the Chained CPI-U. For the same lower-income household, GAO estimates show that retirement income would increase by about 4 percent over 30 years if the CPI-E were used. For a household in the highest income quintile, estimates show that total retirement income would change by 1 percent over this same period using either alternate scenario.

In addition, implementation issues could complicate use of an alternate CPI. For example, the Chained CPI-U is based on preliminary data that are subject to change up to 1 year after they are initially calculated, and the revisions can be significant either upward or downward. As a result, agencies may need to consider how or whether to address this issue. Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which began producing the CPI-E in 1988, considers the CPI-E an experimental index. According to BLS officials, the potential cost of improving the methodology to produce the CPI-E as an official index could be significant. BLS's 2017 estimates indicate that making the CPI-E official could cost up to $110 million per year.

While this report focused on federal retirement programs, the information is relevant for other federal programs as well. For example, by law the COLA for Social Security retirement benefits is the same as the COLA for Social Security disability benefits, and changes to that COLA trigger changes to the COLA for Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement Board pensions, and Veterans Affairs pensions."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The BLS generates various CPIs that are often used to calculate COLAs for benefits provided by federal programs, including retirement programs such as military pensions, federal employee pensions, and Social Security, one of the largest programs for older Americans. After initial benefits have been set, these federal retirement programs adjust benefits using the CPI-W in order to keep pace with inflation. However, some economists have argued that the CPI-W may overestimate the cost of living because individuals can partially offset the effect of inflation by purchasing different goods and services. Other economists have argued that the CPI-W may underestimate the cost of living for retirees by misrepresenting the quantity of goods and services that older Americans consume, such as medical care and shelter.

GAO was asked to describe the effects of various price indexes on older Americans' retirement security. This report provides information on the benefits and disadvantages of alternate price indexes for measuring the cost of living for older Americans. GAO reviewed federal publications, which GAO identified by interviewing agency officials and searching agency websites. GAO also analyzed historical CPI data and information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to calculate hypothetical COLAs that could have been used if the Social Security COLA used an alternate CPI over the 2003-2033 period. Future CPI assumptions are from SSA and consistent with the intermediate long-range assumptions in the 2018 Trustees Report. GAO also analyzed 2016 data from the Survey of Consumer Finances to understand the share of retirement income that is from Social Security benefits."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making recommendations in this report."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-218R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Environmental Cleanup Liability

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of Environmental Management's environmental liability. The report (GAO-19-28) is titled "Department of Energy: Program-Wide Strategy and Better Reporting Needed to Address Growing Environmental Cleanup Liability".

The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) faces ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Office of Environmental Management's environmental liability. The report (GAO-19-28) is titled "Department of Energy: Program-Wide Strategy and Better Reporting Needed to Address Growing Environmental Cleanup Liability". The report was sent to Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Jan. 29. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) facesan environmental liability of $377 billion, according to DOE's fiscal year 2018 financial statement. This amount largely reflects estimates of future costs to clean up legacy radioactive tank waste and contaminated facilities and soil. From fiscal years 2011 through 2018, EM's environmental liability grew by about $214 billion--outpacing its cleanup spending of about $45 billion for that time period. Contract and project management problems and other factors have led to this growth. For example, EM's environmental liability increased by nearly $130 billion from fiscal year 2014 to 2018 at the Hanford Site in Washington State, in part because of contract and project management problems with waste cleanup. GAO found that EM's liability will likely continue to grow, in part because the costs of some future work are not yet included in the estimated liability. For example, EM's liability does not include more than $2.3 billion in costs associated with 45 contaminated facilities that will likely be transferred to EM from other DOE programs in the future.

EM relies primarily on individual sites to locally negotiate cleanup activities and establish priorities. GAO's analysis of DOE documents identified instances of decisions involving billions of dollars where such an approach did not always balance overall risks and costs. For example, two EM sites had plans to treat similar radioactive tank waste differently, and the costs at one site--Hanford--may be tens of billions more than those at the other site. EM sites generally do not consider other sites' risks and priorities when making cleanup decisions. This is not consistent with recommendations by GAO and others over the last 2 decades that EM develop national priorities to balance risks and costs across and within its sites. However, EM has not developed such a program-wide strategy. Instead, according to agency officials, it continues to prioritize and fund cleanup activities by individual site. Without a strategy that sets national priorities and describes how DOE will address its greatest risks, EM lacks assurance that it is making the most cost-effective cleanup decisions across its sites.

EM's recent budget materials have not provided required or accurate information on funding needed to meet future cleanup responsibilities. For example, under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, EM must annually report estimated costs and detailed funding needs for future cleanup activities. EM's 2017 submission to Congress--only the second one since 2011--did not include a detailed list of upcoming activities or funding needed to meet those activities. Additionally, EM's recent budget materials have not reflected the funding needed to meet schedule milestones called for in site-specific compliance agreements with states. These agreements are legally enforceable documents defining cleanup activities that DOE must achieve by specified dates. By reflecting the funding it needs to meet all of its scheduled milestones called for in compliance agreements--for example, in its annual report noted above or in supplemental budget materials--EM could better ensure that Congress has complete information to assess the full costs of long-term cleanup."

Why GAO Did This Study: "DOE is tasked with cleaning up legacy waste from nuclear weapons produced during the Cold War era. Since it began its cleanup program in 1989, EM has spent about $170 billion, but its most challenging and costly cleanup work remains, according to agency documents. EM's cleanup of legacy defense waste is annually funded through discretionary appropriations, so difficult trade-offs will have to be made between cleanup and other nuclear-related defense spending.

In 2017, GAO added federal government environmental liabilities to its High-Risk List. GAO was asked to review EM's environmental liability. This report examines (1) what is known about EM's environmental liability, (2) the extent to which EM balances risks and costs when addressing its cleanup responsibilities, and (3) the extent to which EM's budget materials provide required and accurate information on needed funding. GAO reviewed DOE financial statements, DOE documents, and reports by independent experts; visited three EM sites with three-quarters of the liability; and interviewed EM headquarters and site officials."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations to DOE: (1) develop a program-wide strategy that outlines how it will balance risks and costs across sites; (2) submit its mandated annual cleanup report that meets all requirements; and (3) disclose the funding needed to meet all scheduled milestones called for in compliance agreements, either in required annual reports or other supplemental budget materials. DOE agreed with all three recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-28?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Health Insurance Exchanges

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on claims costs of issuers participating in exchanges. The report (GAO-19-215) is titled "Health Insurance Exchanges: Claims Costs and Federal and State Policies Drove Issuer Participation, Premiums, and Plan Design".

The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. ... Show Full Article

GAO Issues Report on Overseas Contingency Operations

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on alternatives that Congress or Department of Defense could use to separate funding for overseas contingency operations and base activities. The report (GAO-19-211) is titled "Overseas Contingency Operations: Alternatives Identified to the Approach to Fund War- Related Activities".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking ... Show Full Article

GAO Issues Report on Army Modernization

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Army's modernization strategy. The report (GAO-19-132) is titled "Army Modernization: Steps Needed to Ensure Army Futures Command Fully Applies Leading Practices".

The report was sent to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 23,. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Since 2017, when the Army announced its initiative to update its forces and equipment with improved capabilities--known ... Show Full Article

GAO Issues Report on Medicare

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the episode-based payment models developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report (GAO-19-156) is titled "Medicare: Voluntary and Mandatory Episode-Based Payment Models and Their Participants".

The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "As of February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had tested, or was in the process of testing, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the episode-based payment models developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The report (GAO-19-156) is titled "Medicare: Voluntary and Mandatory Episode-Based Payment Models and Their Participants". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "As of February 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had tested, or was in the process of testing,six episode-based payment models as alternatives to traditional Medicare. In these models, rather than pay providers largely based on the volume and complexity of each individual service, CMS establishes a target payment amount to cover the costs of all the services Medicare beneficiaries may receive during a defined "episode of care" initiated by a health care event, such as a surgical hospitalization. Providers can earn additional payments if they treat beneficiaries for less than the target amount and meet certain quality metrics; in some models, providers may be penalized for expenditures that exceed the target amount or if the care provided does not meet quality goals. Provider participation in all but one of the six models being tested is entirely voluntary (i.e., eligible providers may choose to participate in the model and generally have an option to leave the model before testing ends), with participation in the remaining model mandatory for some providers (i.e., eligible providers must participate and cannot leave the model before testing ends).

According to CMS data and reports that GAO reviewed, providers participating in the six episode-based payment models typically had more beds or larger practices, had higher episode volume, and were more often located in urban areas compared to all providers that participated in traditional Medicare. Stakeholders--participants, experts, and provider groups--that GAO interviewed noted that the likelihood for financial gain under voluntary models can influence providers' decisions to participate in the models.

Stakeholders also identified relative advantages of voluntary versus mandatory episode-based payment models. In general, stakeholders reported that voluntary models largely benefit providers. For example, these models tend to have more generous terms and providers can choose to participate in only those models where they are likely to be successful. On the other hand, mandatory models are more likely to give CMS generalizable evaluation results."

Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2017, expenditures for health care services provided through traditional Medicare totaled approximately $394 billion and were expected to grow to $730 billion by 2027. This 85 percent increase is expected to be driven by multiple factors, including increases in the number of services provided per beneficiary. In an effort to slow this growth and improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries, CMS is testing alternatives to traditional Medicare, such as episode-based payment models. Under episode-based payment models, providers such as hospitals or physician group practices are held accountable for the cost and quality of the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries during a defined episode of care.

GAO was asked to review the episode-based payment models developed by CMS. This report (1) describes the characteristics of the providers that participated in these models and (2) compares the relative advantages of voluntary versus mandatory episode-based payment models, as identified by stakeholders.

GAO analyzed CMS data on participants and other providers and reviewed CMS's evaluations of the models. GAO also interviewed multiple stakeholders, including officials from CMS, its contractors, selected providers and organizations representing providers, as well as Medicare experts.

The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report. GAO incorporated these comments as appropriate."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-156?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Climate Change

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. The report (GAO-19-166) is titled "Climate Change: Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration".

The report was sent to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. The report (GAO-19-166) is titled "Climate Change: Activities of Selected Agencies to Address Potential Impact on Global Migration". The report was sent to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found:"From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, a variety of executive branch actions related to climate change--such as executive orders and strategies--affected the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD), including their activities that could potentially address the nexus of climate change and migration. For example, a fiscal year 2016 presidential memorandum--rescinded in 2017--required agencies to develop implementation plans to identify the potential impact of climate change on human mobility, among other things. In general, however, climate change as a driver of migration was not a focus of the executive branch actions. For example, a fiscal year 2014 executive order--also rescinded in 2017--requiring agencies to prepare for the impacts of climate change did not highlight migration as a particular concern.

State, USAID, and DOD have discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in agency plans and risk assessments. For example, State and USAID required climate change risk assessments when developing country and regional strategies, and a few of the strategies reviewed by GAO identified the nexus of climate change and migration as a risk. However, State changed its approach in 2017, no longer providing missions with guidance on whether and how to include climate change risks in their integrated country strategies. In doing so, State did not include in its 2018 guidance to the missions any information on how to include climate change risks, should the missions choose to do so. Without clear guidance, State may miss opportunities to identify and address issues related to climate change as a potential driver of migration.

The three agencies have been involved in climate change related activities but none were specifically focused on the nexus with global migration. For example, USAID officials said that the agency's adaptation efforts, such as its Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion project in Ethiopia, were the most likely to include activities, such as enhancing resilience, that can indirectly address the issue of climate change as a driver of migration."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The effects of climate change, combined with other factors, may alter human migration trends across the globe, according to the International Organization for Migration. For example, climate change can increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, causing populations to move from an area. Climate change can also intensify slow-onset disasters, such as drought, crop failure, or sea level rise, potentially altering longer-term migration trends.

GAO was asked to review how U.S. agencies address climate change as a potential driver of global migration. For State, USAID, and DOD, this report (1) describes executive branch actions related to climate change and migration from fiscal years 2014 through 2018; (2) examines the extent to which the agencies discussed the potential effects of climate change on migration in their plans and risk assessments; and (3) describes agency activities on the issue. GAO analyzed documents on administration priorities; reviewed agency plans, risk assessments, and documentation of agency activities; and interviewed agency officials."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that State provide missions with guidance that clearly documents its process for climate change risk assessments for country strategies. In commenting on a draft of this report, State indicated that it would update its integrated country strategy guidance and will specifically note that missions have the option to provide additional information on climate resilience and related topics."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-166?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Defense Management

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has made progress in addressing the requirements of section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The report (GAO-19-165) is titled "Defense Management: DOD Needs to Implement Statutory Requirements and Identify Resources for Its Cross-Functional Reform Teams".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the extent to which the Department of Defense has made progress in addressing the requirements of section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The report (GAO-19-165) is titled "Defense Management: DOD Needs to Implement Statutory Requirements and Identify Resources for Its Cross-Functional Reform Teams". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep.Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented four statutory requirements in section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, but has not addressed five requirements intended to support cross-functional teams and promote department-wide collaboration (see table).

(Table omitted)

For two of these requirements, DOD has missed the statutory deadline by more than a year. GAO previously recommended that DOD take actions to improve its implementation of section 911, and DOD reported it is doing so, such as revising its draft cross-functional team guidance to address statutory requirements. Fully implementing GAO's prior recommendations and the remaining statutory requirements would better position DOD to effectively implement its cross-functional teams and advance a collaborative culture, as required by the NDAA.

Nine cross-functional teams are driving DOD's enterprise business reform efforts under section 921 of the FY 2019 NDAA, but the teams' progress has been uneven. As of September 2018, DOD reported that these nine teams were pursuing a total of 135 business reform initiatives. However, 104 of these initiatives have not reached the implementation phase. A key challenge facing the teams is that some lack resources to fully implement their approved initiatives. For example, DOD officials stated that the department did not fulfill four of nine funding requests from the teams in fiscal year 2018 to implement their initiatives. As of September 2018, DOD officials estimated that the teams need about $6.7 billion to implement their initiatives from FYs 2018 through 2024, but DOD has not identified sources for this funding. GAO's prior work on efficiency initiatives found that up-front investments may be required to realize long-term savings. In addition, GAO's prior work on leading practices for implementing effective cross-functional teams highlights the importance of providing teams with access to resources and having well-defined team operations with established rules and procedures. However, DOD has not established a process for identifying and prioritizing available funding for implementing the teams' initiatives. Without such a process, DOD and the teams may not be able to adequately plan for and execute their reform initiatives."

Why GAO Did This Study: "DOD continues to confront organizational challenges that hinder collaboration. To address these challenges, section 911 of the NDAA for FY 2017 directed the Secretary of Defense to issue an organizational strategy that identifies critical objectives that span multiple functional boundaries; establish cross-functional teams to support this strategy and provide related guidance and training; and take actions to streamline the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Further, section 921 of the NDAA for FY 2019 calls for the Secretary of Defense to reform the department's enterprise business operations.

The NDAAs for FY 2017 and 2019 also included provisions for GAO to assess DOD's actions in response to sections 911 and 921, respectively. This report assesses the extent to which DOD has made progress in (1) addressing the requirements of section 911, and (2) reforming the department's enterprise business operations under section 921. GAO reviewed documentation on DOD's implementation of sections 911 and 921; interviewed cross-functional team leaders, members, and other DOD officials; and compared DOD's implementation of its cross-functional teams to GAO's key practices."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that DOD establish a process to identify and prioritize funding for implementing its cross-functional teams' business reform initiatives. DOD concurred with this recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-165?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Drug Control

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug program. The report (GAO-19-27) is titled "Drug Control: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the National Guard Counterdrug Program".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug program. The report (GAO-19-27) is titled "Drug Control: DOD Should Improve Its Oversight of the National Guard Counterdrug Program". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. WhatGAO Found: "The Department of Defense (DOD) lacks current strategy and guidance to implement the National Guard counterdrug program. Although a number of key national-level strategies, such as the National Drug Control Strategy, have been updated since 2011 to address changing drug threats, GAO found that DOD's 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated to reflect these changes. In addition, the National Guard lacks detailed procedures and processes for the states to implement the National Guard counterdrug program, such as how to conduct cross-state aerial reconnaissance. Without current strategy or guidance, it will be difficult for the National Guard to operate its counterdrug program effectively.

DOD's processes to approve state counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the state-level counterdrug programs could be improved. Since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the states without first approving state plans for counterdrug activities, as required by statute. GAO found that the delay in approval of state counterdrug plans has worsened since fiscal year 2009; in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days); see figure below. In 2018, DOD took some steps to address the timely review of state plans, but GAO found that those steps did not rectify the problem.

(Figure Omitted)

GAO also found that the process used by the National Guard to distribute funding to the states within the program does not incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities, such as the U.S. southwest and northern border areas. GAO's work on results-oriented management states that strategy should inform program activities and resourcing. Until National Guard's process to distribute funding to state counterdrug programs is improved, it risks directing funding toward lower priority counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Since 1989, DOD has received billions of dollars to fund the National Guard's participation in a counterdrug program focused on domestic drug interdiction activities. DOD received $261 million for this program in fiscal year 2018. This program provides military support to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations with counterdrug activities and operates in 54 states and territories across the United States.

Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the National Guard counterdrug program. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which DOD has strategy and implementing guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program, and (2) assesses DOD's processes to approve states' counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the program, among other things. GAO reviewed DOD's counterdrug strategy and guidance; DOD funding and personnel data; and its processes to distribute funding."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making a total of five recommendations, including, among others, that DOD issue a strategic framework that addresses current drug threats, the National Guard issue guidance with detailed procedures on how states should administer the program, DOD assess the revised process for approving state plans, and the National Guard incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities into its funding distribution process. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-27?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Housing Finance

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Federal Housing Finance Agency's conservatorships of Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. The report (GAO-19-239) is titled "Housing Finance: Prolonged Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Prompt Need for Reform".

The report was sent to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Sean P. Duffy, R-Wisconsin, on Jan. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Federal support ... Show Full Article

GAO Issues Report on Military, Veteran Support

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on comprehensive inventory of the federal programs to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. The report (GAO-19-97R) is titled "Military and Veteran Support: Detailed Inventory of Federal Programs to Help Servicemembers Achieve Civilian Employment".

The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on comprehensive inventory of the federal programs to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. The report (GAO-19-97R) is titled "Military and Veteran Support: Detailed Inventory of Federal Programs to Help Servicemembers Achieve Civilian Employment". The report was sent to Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, rankingmember of the House Armed Services Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "GAO identified 45 federal programs and one tax expenditure to help servicemembers, veterans, or their families achieve civilian jobs. Eleven federal agencies administer these programs, usually independently of one another. GAO also identified one tax expenditure administered by the Department of the Treasury that exempts GI Bill benefits from federal taxation. A few programs are administered primarily by a single agency with assistance from another federal agency. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program, but the Department of Labor (DOL) plays an integral role in delivering services and the two agencies coordinate training and outreach efforts, according to agency officials. Four of the 45 programs we identified are jointly administered by multiple agencies. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) Transition Assistance Program is jointly administered by DOD, VA, DOL, the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration and the United States Coast Guard, which represents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The federal government's commitment to those serving in the military includes assisting them in pursuing education and employment skills to help them succeed in the civilian workforce. In turn, this helps attract, develop, and sustain the nation's all-volunteer military force. This investment in service members continues after they leave military service and includes members of their families whose lives are also affected by their loved one's transition to the civilian workforce. Moreover, multiple federal agencies administer the programs, both independently and together, to provide education and employment assistance, including help with self-employment, to servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

The conference report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to assess the panoply of benefits and programs available government-wide to separating servicemembers intended to provide the skills and education necessary for such members to achieve meaningful and fulfilling employment in their civilian lives. This report provides a comprehensive inventory of the federal programs GAO identified as providing such assistance to servicemembers, veterans, and their families, including information from the administering agencies on who is eligible to receive services, the programs' objectives, and the available services."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-97R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's progress in addressing Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act requirements since 2016. The report (GAO-19-96) is titled "Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act: TSA Generally Addressed Requirements, but Could Improve Reporting on Security-Related Technology".

The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Transportation Security Administration's progress in addressing Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act requirements since 2016. The report (GAO-19-96) is titled "Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act: TSA Generally Addressed Requirements, but Could Improve Reporting on Security-Related Technology". The report was sent to Sen. Roger F. Wicker, R-Mississippi, chairman, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson,D-Mississippi, chairman, and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Jan. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Since 2016, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) generally addressed Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (TSARA) requirements through its policies and procedures for acquisition justifications, baseline requirements, and management of inventory. TSA also, among other actions, submitted a technology investment plan and annual small-business contracting goals reports to Congress as required.

Since December 2014, TSA reported limited security-related technology (SRT) acquisitions to Congress under TSARA, submitting its first report in August 2018. TSARA contains a report and certification provision pursuant to which TSA is to submit information to Congress 30 days prior to the award of a contract for an SRT acquisition exceeding $30 million. Through July 2018, TSA obligated about $1.4 billion on SRT and associated services. TSA officials explained that none of these obligations--including 7 SRT orders, each in excess of $30 million--invoked the report and certification provision because the obligations did not align with TSA's implementation policy, which provides that the $30 million threshold relates to the contract ceiling of the initial SRT contract and not to individual task and delivery orders. Revising TSA's policy to include contracts for services that enhance the capabilities of SRT, including any orders for SRT and associated services in excess of $30 million, would better ensure that Congress has the information it needs to effectively oversee TSA's SRT acquisitions.

TSA has not effectively communicated internally its implementation decisions for what constitutes an SRT under TSARA. TSA officials described to GAO that SRT must be equipment that is public facing, but TSA's policy does not clearly state the parameters of what is considered an SRT. Without clear guidance, TSA staff may be unaware of these parameters and how they apply to future acquisitions under TSARA. For example, TSA acquisition program staff were initially unable to confirm for GAO whether the technologies TSA had acquired were SRTs and thus subject to TSARA. Updating TSA policy to include detailed parameters for what constitutes an SRT would better ensure consistency in applying the act."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Enacted in December 2014, TSARA introduced legislative reforms to promote greater transparency and accountability in TSA's SRT acquisitions.

TSARA contains a provision that GAO submit two reports to Congress on TSA's progress in implementing TSARA. In February 2016, GAO issued the first report that found TSA had taken actions to address TSARA.

This second report examines TSA's (1) progress in addressing TSARA requirements since 2016, (2) reporting to Congress on SRT acquisitions, and (3) internal communication of its implementation decisions. GAO examined TSARA and TSA documents and guidance; analyzed TSA contract data and reports from TSARA's enactment in December 2014 through July 2018 and September 2018, respectively; and interviewed DHS and TSA officials on actions taken to implement TSARA. GAO also conducted interviews with TSA officials on parameters for reporting on SRT acquisitions."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that TSA revise its policies for the report and certification provision of TSARA to include reporting on task and delivery orders and services associated with SRT, and clarify in policy what constitutes an SRT under TSARA. DHS generally concurred with the recommendations and described steps it plans to take to implement them."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-96?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Bureau of Reclamation

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The report (GAO-19-110) is titled "Bureau of Reclamation: Water Reuse Grant Program Supports Diverse Projects and Is Managed Consistently with Federal Regulations".

The report was sent to Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, ranking member of the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and Rep. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The report (GAO-19-110) is titled "Bureau of Reclamation: Water Reuse Grant Program Supports Diverse Projects and Is Managed Consistently with Federal Regulations". The report was sent to Rep. Jared Huffman, D-California, ranking member of the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-California, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and Rep.Paul Tonko, D-New York, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Environment, on Dec. 13. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Bureau of Reclamation, within the Department of the Interior, awarded about $715 million in water reuse grants for 46 construction projects and 71 studies under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI) from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2017, according to agency documents. Most of the Title XVI funding--about $703 million--has been awarded for construction projects. Some construction projects remain eligible for Title XVI grant funding. About $464 million in eligible Title XVI grant funding not yet awarded remains for projects that Congress individually authorized; for projects eligible under the 2016 amendments to the Title XVI program, about $513 million remains.

Title XVI projects and studies cover various uses for reused water. For example, many projects GAO reviewed produce reused water for landscape and agricultural irrigation, as well as water that may later be extracted for drinking water, as shown in the figure. Title XVI projects are located in western urban and rural areas, with California accounting for 36 construction projects.

(Figure Omitted)

Reclamation's process to select Title XVI projects and studies to receive grants involves announcing the funding opportunity, establishing criteria to evaluate potential projects, and reviewing applications to make award decisions, according to agency documents GAO reviewed. GAO found that Reclamation's grant award process is consistent with relevant federal regulations for awarding grants. For example, the Title XVI funding opportunity announcements GAO reviewed contained information required by the regulations, such as the criteria used to evaluate applications. In recent years, Reclamation has changed the criteria it uses to evaluate projects, eliminating or adding some criteria and changing the weighting of others. Reclamation officials said that these changes were made in part in response to statutory changes."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Population growth and drought are among the factors that have placed increasing demands on the U.S. water supply, particularly in the arid West. The reuse of wastewater can help address water management challenges by treating water that is typically unusable and then reusing it for beneficial purposes, such as irrigation, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Reclamation's Title XVI program awards grants for the study and construction of water reuse projects in 17 western states and Hawaii. From fiscal years 1992 through 2009, Congress individually authorized some Title XVI projects. In 2016, Congress amended the Title XVI program to allow grants to be awarded to additional water reuse projects.

GAO was asked to review the Title XVI program. This report describes, among other things, for the Title XVI program (1) grants Reclamation has awarded for projects and studies and remaining projects that are eligible for grants, (2) the types and locations of projects and studies that have received grants, and (3) Reclamation's process for selecting projects and studies and its consistency with federal grant regulations as well as how the program's evaluation criteria have changed since 2011. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency guidance; analyzed financial data for fiscal years 1992 through 2017; compared documents related to the project selection process against federal grant regulations; and interviewed agency officials and nonfederal project sponsors with different types of projects."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-110?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Health Information Technology

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on patient record matching. The report (GAO-19-197) is titled "Health Information Technology: Approaches and Challenges to Electronically Matching Patients' Records across Providers".

The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here are ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on patient record matching. The report (GAO-19-197) is titled "Health Information Technology: Approaches and Challenges to Electronically Matching Patients' Records across Providers". The report was sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, chairman, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Jan. 15. Here areexcerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Stakeholders GAO interviewed, including representatives from physician practices and hospitals, described their approaches for matching patients' records--that is, comparing patient information in different health records to determine if the records refer to the same patient. Stakeholders explained that when exchanging health information with other providers, they match patients' medical records using demographic information, such as the patient's name, date of birth, or sex. This record matching can be done manually or automatically. For example, several provider representatives said that they rely on software that automatically matches records based on the records' demographic information when receiving medical records electronically. Stakeholders said that software can also identify potential matches, which staff then manually review to determine whether the records correspond to the same patient. Stakeholders also said that inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistently formatted demographic information in patients' records can pose challenges to accurate matching. They noted, for example, that records don't always contain correct information (e.g., a patient may provide a nickname rather than a legal name) and that health information technology (IT) systems and providers use different formats for key information such as names that contain hyphens.

Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified recent or ongoing efforts to improve the data and methods used in patient record matching, such as the following:

Several stakeholders told GAO they worked to improve the consistency with which they format demographic data in their electronic health records (EHR). In 2017, 23 providers in Texas implemented standards for how staff record patients' names, addresses, and other data. Representatives from three hospitals said this increased their ability to match patients' medical records automatically. For example, one hospital's representatives said they had seen a significant decrease in the need to manually review records that do not match automatically.

Stakeholders also described efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of methods used to match patient records. For example, in 2017 the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) hosted a competition for participants to create an algorithm that most accurately matched patient records. ONC selected six winning submissions and plans to report on their analysis of the competition's data.

Stakeholders said more could be done to improve patient record matching, and identified several efforts that could improve matching. For example, some said that implementing common standards for recording demographic data; sharing best practices and other resources; and developing a public-private collaboration effort could each improve matching. Stakeholders' views varied on the roles ONC and others should play in these efforts and the extent to which the efforts would improve matching. For example, some said that ONC could require demographic data standards as part of its responsibility for certifying EHR systems, while other stakeholders said that ONC could facilitate the voluntary adoption of such standards. Multiple stakeholders emphasized that no single effort would solve the challenge of patient record matching."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Health care providers are increasingly sharing patients' health records electronically. When a patient's records are shared with another provider, it is important to accurately match them to the correct patient. GAO and others have reported that accurately matching patient health records is a barrier to health information exchange and that inaccurately matched records can adversely affect patient safety or privacy. At the federal level, ONC is charged with coordinating nationwide efforts to implement and use health IT.

The 21st Century Cures Act included a provision for GAO to study patient record matching. In this report, GAO describes (1) stakeholders' patient record matching approaches and related challenges; and (2) efforts to improve patient record matching identified by stakeholders.

To do its work, GAO reviewed reports by ONC and others about patient record matching. GAO also interviewed various stakeholders that play a role in exchanging health records, including representatives from physician practices, hospitals, health systems, health information exchange organizations, and health IT vendors. GAO also interviewed other stakeholders, such as ONC officials, provider and industry associations, and researchers. GAO selected stakeholders based on background research and input from other stakeholders, and interviewed 37 stakeholders in total. The information from stakeholders is not generalizable. HHS provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-197?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Food and Nutrition Service's efforts to address Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program retailer trafficking. The report (GAO-19-167) is titled "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking".

The report was sent to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Jim Jordan, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Food and Nutrition Service's efforts to address Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program retailer trafficking. The report (GAO-19-167) is titled "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking". The report was sent to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Government Operations, Rep. Jim Jordan,R-Ohio, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, on Dec. 14. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) estimates of retailer trafficking--when a retailer exchanges Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for cash instead of food--have limitations, though they suggest trafficking has increased in recent years, to $1 billion each year from 2012 to 2014. One key limitation of the estimates is that FNS has not evaluated the accuracy of its assumption about the percentage of SNAP benefits trafficked. FNS assumes that, among stores that trafficked, 90 percent of the benefits redeemed in small stores, and 40 percent in large stores, were trafficked. A former FNS official stated that this assumption is based on discussions with investigators in the 1990s when FNS first developed its approach to estimate trafficking, and that they have not since evaluated it for accuracy. However, there are options available for evaluating this assumption, such as reviewing SNAP transaction data from stores that are known to have trafficked. Statistical standards for federal agencies indicate that assumptions should be reviewed for accuracy and validated using available, independent information sources. By not evaluating this key assumption, FNS's commonly cited estimates of SNAP fraud are potentially inaccurate.

FNS has generally taken steps to address retailer trafficking that align with leading fraud risk management practices, but the agency has not pursued additional actions to prevent and respond to trafficking. For example:

Although FNS assigns a risk level to each store when it applies to participate in SNAP, it is not currently using this information to target its reauthorization activities to stores of greatest risk. During reauthorization, FNS reviews previously approved stores for continued compliance with program requirements. FNS currently reauthorizes all stores on the same 5-year cycle, regardless of risk, although its policy states that it will reauthorize certain high-risk stores annually. FNS officials planned to reauthorize a sample of high-risk stores each year, but said they did not follow through with those plans. Officials also stated that they did not document an analysis of the benefits and costs of this practice, which would be consistent with leading fraud risk management practices. As a result, FNS may be missing an opportunity to provide early oversight of risky stores and prevent trafficking.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 gave USDA the authority to strengthen penalties for retailers found to have trafficked, but as of November 2018, FNS had not implemented this authority. FNS proposed a related rule change in 2012 and indicated the change was necessary to deter retailers from committing program violations, but the rule was not finalized. By failing to take timely action to strengthen penalties, FNS has not taken full advantage of an important tool for deterring trafficking."

Why GAO Did This Study: "SNAP is the largest federally funded nutrition assistance program, providing about $64 billion in benefits to over 20 million households in fiscal year 2017. FNS oversees SNAP at the federal level and is responsible for authorizing and overseeing retailers. While most benefits are used as intended, some retailers have engaged in trafficking, which represents fraud and diverts federal funds from their intended use. GAO was asked to review FNS's efforts to address SNAP retailer trafficking since GAO's last report in 2006.

This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of SNAP retailer trafficking, and (2) the extent to which FNS has taken steps intended to improve how it prevents, detects, and responds to retailer trafficking. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, FNS policies, and studies related to retailer trafficking; assessed FNS's use of statistical standards for federal agencies and selected leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework ; and interviewed FNS and USDA Office of Inspector General officials and key stakeholders."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making five recommendations, including that FNS improve its trafficking estimates by, for example, evaluating the accuracy of its assumption of the percentage of benefits that are trafficked; assess the benefits and costs of reauthorizing a sample of high risk stores more frequently than others; and move forward with plans to increase penalties for trafficking. FNS generally agreed with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-167?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Improper Payments

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. The report (GAO-19-112) is titled "Improper Payments: Selected Agencies Need Improvements in Their Assessments to Better Determine and Document Risk Susceptibility".

The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, on Jan. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended (IPIA), defines "significant" ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. The report (GAO-19-112) is titled "Improper Payments: Selected Agencies Need Improvements in Their Assessments to Better Determine and Document Risk Susceptibility". The report was sent to Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, and Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Alabama, on Jan. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended (IPIA), defines "significant"improper payments as improper payments in the preceding fiscal year that may have exceeded either (1) 1.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million or (2) $100 million (regardless of the improper payment rate). GAO found that the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury (Treasury), Justice (DOJ), and Agriculture (USDA) assessed the five programs GAO selected for review as at low risk for susceptibility to significant improper payments; however, HHS, Treasury, and DOJ lacked sufficient documentation to assess the extent to which their risk assessments provided a reasonable basis for their risk determinations. On the other hand, USDA's quantitative risk assessment of its program's susceptibility to significant improper payments provided a reasonable basis for its low-risk determination.

Although HHS, Treasury, and DOJ considered, among other factors, the nine risk factors from IPIA and Office of Management and Budget guidance, they did not document or effectively demonstrate how these factors affected their programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments. These programs' risk assessments did not contain sufficient documentation to determine how the agencies arrived at their risk determinations for each risk factor, or how the total scores for all risk factors led to low-risk determinations. For example, HHS determined that its Head Start program was at high risk for several risk factors--including complexity per transaction and volume of payments--but did not document how these high-risk ratings informed its overall determination that Head Start was not susceptible to significant improper payments.

Further, the agencies did not have documentation to demonstrate how they determined the weighting of each risk factor or the risk level ranges from the risk assessment templates as they relate to the programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments. For example, based on GAO's analysis of Treasury's risk assessment template, the agency could identify areas of risk related to each of the nine risk factors. But because of the assigned weights given to each risk factor, Treasury's final risk calculation would still not determine the program to be at high risk of susceptibility to significant improper payments. Without documenting the basis for the assigned weights, Treasury cannot demonstrate, and GAO cannot determine, that its process for determining its programs' susceptibility to significant improper payments was reasonable. Until HHS, Treasury, and DOJ revise their risk assessment processes to help ensure that they result in reliable assessments, they cannot be certain whether their programs are susceptible to significant improper payments and therefore whether they are required to estimate the amount of improper payments.

GAO also found that HHS did not assess many of its programs and activities at least once during the 3-year period from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, as required by IPIA. Based on the analysis of HHS information, GAO identified at least 140 programs or activities that were not assessed during the 3-year period. When not all eligible programs are reviewed as required, there is an increased risk that the agency may not identify all risk-susceptible programs and activities, resulting in incomplete improper payment estimates."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Improper payments are a long-standing problem in the federal government, estimated at almost $141 billion for fiscal year 2017. Agencies are required to perform risk assessments to identify programs that may be susceptible to significant improper payments.

GAO was asked to review federal agencies' improper payment risk assessments. This report examines the extent to which certain agencies' improper payment risk assessments for selected programs provided a reasonable basis for determining their susceptibility to significant improper payments. GAO analyzed the most recent risk assessments, from 2015 through 2017, for the following five programs: USDA's Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs; HHS's Head Start; DOJ's Law Enforcement; and Treasury's Interest on the Public Debt and Home Affordable Modification Program. GAO selected these programs, focusing on programs that recently underwent a risk assessment and size of programs' gross outlays--which totaled about $330 billion in fiscal year 2017 for the five programs GAO selected."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that Treasury, DOJ, and HHS revise their improper payment risk assessment processes, and that HHS revise its procedures to help ensure that all programs are assessed at least once every 3 years. In their responses, Treasury and HHS agreed with the recommendations, and DOJ disagreed with GAO's recommendation. GAO continues to believe that the recommendation is valid, as discussed in the report."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-112?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on VA Real Property

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs faces in disposing of its vacant properties. The report (GAO-19-148) is titled "VA Real Property: Clear Procedures and Improved Data Collection Could Facilitate Property Disposals".

The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on Jan. 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Conducting required ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs faces in disposing of its vacant properties. The report (GAO-19-148) is titled "VA Real Property: Clear Procedures and Improved Data Collection Could Facilitate Property Disposals". The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on Jan. 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Conducting requiredenvironmental and historic reviews in a timely manner is among the challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces in its real property disposal process. These reviews include assessing the potential effects of property disposals on the environment and historic preservation. VA is taking steps to address these ongoing challenges. For example, VA has established a working group consisting of experts in historic preservation, environmental reviews, and real property to assist facilities' managers in expediting disposals. However, other ongoing challenges remain, including the marketability of VA properties and VA's lack of clear procedures for property disposals. While VA has guidance on disposals at the broad portfolio level, GAO determined that this guidance does not contain step-by-step procedures at the project level to assist facilities' managers to plan, implement, and execute disposals for the different disposal options. (See figure.) For example, a number of managers told GAO that they were not familiar with actions to take when transferring properties to a third party or turning over excess property to the General Services Administration for disposal. VA officials commented that facilities' managers do not frequently dispose of properties, so a procedural document outlining the steps and who is responsible for taking those steps may help staff navigate more complex disposal processes and avoid missteps and delays.

(Figure omitted)

VA has enhanced its data collection on vacant properties, but the agency does not collect information needed to track and monitor disposal projects at the headquarters level. For example, VA requires facilities' managers to verify and certify the validity of vacant property data in the database used to manage real property--the Capital Asset Inventory. On disposal projects, however, VA lacks certain information, such as the status of environmental or historical reviews, to monitor progress. According to VA, the Capital Asset Inventory currently does not have enough capacity to collect key information and supporting documentation. VA officials said they plan to increase the capacity, but VA has not yet included some key information in the Capital Asset Inventory that could enable VA to monitor the progress of disposals. Without information on the status of disposal projects, VA cannot readily track and monitor its progress and identify areas where facilities' managers may need additional assistance."

Why GAO Did This Study: "VA is one of the largest federal property-holding agencies, and its inventory of vacant buildings has generally increased over the last 6 years. Disposing of its excess properties has been a long-standing challenge.

GAO was asked to review how VA manages its real property disposals. This report addresses: (1) the challenges VA faces in disposing of its vacant properties and how it is addressing those challenges and (2) the extent to which VA is tracking and monitoring the disposal of its vacant properties.

GAO reviewed VA's policies and planning documents regarding property disposals. GAO also selected 31 properties that were either disposed of or planned for disposal in fiscal year 2017, among other selection criteria. GAO interviewed VA officials and stakeholders involved in the disposal of the 31 selected properties and familiar with VA's disposal process, including steps VA is taking to address challenges."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations. These include developing disposal procedures for facilities' managers to help plan, implement, and execute disposal projects and collecting key information on the status of disposal projects, as VA implements its plans to increase the capacity of VA's Capital Asset Inventory. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-148?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Food Insecurity

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on food insecurity among college students. The report (GAO-19-95) is titled "Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits".

The report was sent to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on food insecurity among college students. The report (GAO-19-95) is titled "Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits". The report was sent to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts,on Dec. 21. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "There is limited information about the national prevalence of food insecurity among college students. GAO reviewed 31 studies that identified a wide range of food insecurity rates among the students studied, but the studies did not provide national estimates. College students at risk of food insecurity may be eligible for benefits from the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) data shows that almost 2 million at-risk students who were potentially eligible for SNAP did not report receiving benefits in 2016. According to GAO's analysis, having a low income is the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college students. Among low-income students, most have one additional risk factor associated with food insecurity, such as being a first-generation student or a single parent.

The 14 selected colleges that GAO contacted were addressing student food insecurity in a number of ways. For example, all 14 were providing free food to students through on-campus food pantries, and most were offering emergency funds to help students pay for living expenses that might otherwise force them to choose between buying food or staying in school. Many of these colleges had centralized student services to better address their students' basic needs and provide other support, such as screening students for potential eligibility and helping them apply for federal benefit programs like SNAP.

Federal student aid generally does not cover all college costs for low-income students, and college students may have limited access to federal food assistance programs such as SNAP because of program eligibility restrictions. Some state SNAP agencies reported that they are taking steps to help students access SNAP by conducting outreach to colleges and developing guidance. Nevertheless, at 9 of the 14 colleges GAO contacted, some college officials and students said that they were unfamiliar with or did not fully understand SNAP's student eligibility rules. Some college officials said that they would like information from FNS to better explain SNAP student rules, but FNS has not made such information easily accessible on its website. Further, college officials and state SNAP agencies noted that FNS does not share examples of actions taken by other states to help eligible students access SNAP. Clarification of SNAP student eligibility rules and enhanced information sharing about state efforts could help ensure that potentially eligible college students can access federal food assistance programs."

Why GAO Did This Study: "Increasing evidence indicates that some college students are experiencing food insecurity, which can negatively impact their academic success. However, college students are only eligible for SNAP in certain cases. Given the substantial federal investment in higher education and the risk posed if students do not complete their degrees, GAO was asked to review food insecurity among college students.

This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the extent to which federal programs assist students experiencing food insecurity. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents and studies on student food insecurity; analyzed 2016 federal student data (the most recent available), and visited four states, selected based on actions taken to address student food insecurity, geographic diversity, and other factors. GAO interviewed researchers; officials from Education, FNS national and regional offices; and officials at 14 colleges, including students at 8 of these colleges. GAO also emailed all state SNAP agencies about their efforts related to students."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FNS (1) improve student eligibility information on its website and (2) share information on state SNAP agencies' approaches to help eligible students. FNS partially concurred, and plans to review its information. GAO continues to believe additional action is warranted, as discussed in the report."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Federal Protective Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to organizational placement options for Federal Protective Service. The report (GAO-19-122) is titled "Federal Protective Service: DHS Should Take Additional Steps to Evaluate Organizational Placement".

The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Rep. J. Luis Correa, D-California, and Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, D-Louisiana, on Jan. 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "In considering organizational placement options for the Department of Homeland Security's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on issues related to organizational placement options for Federal Protective Service. The report (GAO-19-122) is titled "Federal Protective Service: DHS Should Take Additional Steps to Evaluate Organizational Placement". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Rep. J. Luis Correa, D-California, and Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, D-Louisiana, on Jan. 8. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In considering organizational placement options for the Department of Homeland Security's(DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS), GAO found that none of the eight agencies GAO selected met all the key organizational placement criteria; thus, any of the organizational placement options could result in both benefits and trade-offs. For example, keeping FPS in DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) could provide FPS some benefits because FPS and NPPD have missions that include the protection of infrastructure or specific facilities, facility protection responsibilities, and access to and sharing of information related to national homeland security. However, unlike FPS, NPPD does not perform both physical security and law enforcement activities, which is a potential trade-off. In another example, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States Marshals Service (Marshals) could provide benefits because they currently coordinate with FPS on facility protection. However, Marshals does not have a mission or goals that explicitly focus on the protection of infrastructure or facilities and GSA does not perform law enforcement, which are potential trade-offs.

DHS has not taken key steps to fully assess potential placement options. Specifically, DHS has not assessed the organizational structure of FPS, such as its placement in NPPD, even though FPS and NPPD have evolved since FPS was placed in NPPD in 2010. Standards for Internal Control state that agency management should establish an organizational structure to achieve the agency's objectives and that an effective management practice for attaining this outcome includes periodically evaluating the structure to ensure that it has adapted to changes. Additionally, because DHS did not analyze FPS's current placement in NPPD, DHS does not have a benchmark for comparison to other agencies. DHS recently established a working group to assess the placement of FPS. However, the group's planned activities are limited in several ways. For example, the group's draft charter does not indicate that the working group will describe what DHS expects to achieve by changing FPS's placement. Further, the draft charter does not indicate that the working group will evaluate the benefits and trade-offs of placement options. GAO has previously identified these and other steps as key to successful organizational change or analysis of alternatives. These steps would help DHS address the 2018 legislation to review placement options for FPS--including, how DHS considered the results of GAO's review. Regardless of the legislation, DHS may not be positioning itself to make an informed decision as to what organization best supports FPS."

Why GAO Did This Study: "FPS, within DHS's NPPD, conducts physical security and law enforcement activities for about 9,000 federal facilities and the millions of employees or visitors who work in or visit these facilities. FPS moved from GSA to DHS's ICE in 2003 and to NPPD in 2009. GAO has reported that FPS faced challenges in each location. Legislation enacted in November 2018 requires DHS to review placement options for FPS and could result in FPS moving again within DHS or to another executive branch agency.

GAO was asked to review issues related to organizational placement options for FPS. This report examines (1) the potential effects of FPS's placement in selected agencies and (2) steps DHS has taken to assess placement options for FPS. GAO identified five key organizational placement criteria based on prior work and identified eight agencies as potential placement options. The agencies were selected because they have the largest number of law enforcement officers or perform physical security, among other reasons. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from FPS, selected agencies, and key stakeholders. GAO compared agencies to FPS to determine if they meet the organizational placement criteria. An agency meets the criteria if it has similarities to FPS."

What GAO Recommends: "DHS should identify the expectations for changing FPS's placement and take steps to fully evaluate placement options. DHS concurred with the recommendations and outlined steps it plans to take to address them."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-122?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Tobacco Exports

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation of restrictions on promoting tobacco overseas. The report (GAO-19-124) is titled "Tobacco Exports: Agencies Have Implemented Restrictions on Promoting Tobacco Overseas but Additional Actions Could Strengthen Their Efforts".

The report was sent to Rep. Karen Bass, D-California, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, on Dec. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associated ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the implementation of restrictions on promoting tobacco overseas. The report (GAO-19-124) is titled "Tobacco Exports: Agencies Have Implemented Restrictions on Promoting Tobacco Overseas but Additional Actions Could Strengthen Their Efforts". The report was sent to Rep. Karen Bass, D-California, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, on Dec. 6. Here are excerpts of summaries associatedwith the report.

What GAO Found: "Congress has restricted the use of certain appropriated funding to promote tobacco exports and the Departments of State (State), Commerce (Commerce), and Agriculture (USDA) have issued interagency guidance through the cable system that they rely on to implement these restrictions. State collaborates with these and other agencies to periodically update this cable. The cable informs officials about the types of actions they should take--such as providing routine business facilitation services to all U.S. companies--and the types of actions they should not take--such as attending events sponsored by tobacco companies.

Most, but not all, officials overseas that GAO interviewed were aware of the restrictions and received some guidance concerning the restrictions. However, GAO found that some officials did not recall receiving the interagency guidance cable. In addition, State and USDA's current training materials do not address the restrictions. Federal internal control standards state that appropriate training is essential to an organization's operational success. Thus, providing officials overseas with training about the funding restrictions and related guidance would help to ensure that officials are aware of the restrictions.

U.S. officials overseas have implemented restrictions on promoting tobacco, but some officials said that the interagency guidance lacks clarity. Officials said that they have not promoted tobacco by, for example, attending events sponsored solely by tobacco companies. However, officials identified three areas of the guidance that are unclear: (1) attendance at events not sponsored by U.S. tobacco companies but attended by representatives of these companies; (2) the types of services officials can provide tobacco companies; and (3) the description of tobacco products, such as whether component parts for electronic cigarettes are included. Federal standards for internal control state that management should clearly document internal controls in policies and guidance to prevent officials from failing to achieve an objective or address a risk. By providing more specific guidance, the agencies would help ensure that officials consistently implement the funding restrictions on promoting tobacco."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco use kills over 7 million people each year, more than tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria combined. Since the 1990s, Congress has enacted restrictions regarding the use of certain appropriated funds to promote U.S. tobacco exports.

GAO was asked to review the implementation of these restrictions. This report examines (1) guidance select U.S. agencies have issued to implement these restrictions, (2) whether overseas officials from select U.S. agencies were aware of the restrictions and guidance, and (3) select U.S. agencies' implementation of the guidance overseas. GAO reviewed U.S. laws, agency guidance, and internal communications; analyzed Commerce data; and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C. and in 24 offices across 11 overseas posts in 9 countries. GAO selected these countries based on criteria that included U.S. tobacco export totals, smoking rates, and geographic dispersion."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that (1) State and USDA include information about the funding restrictions and guidance in training materials for relevant employees and (2) State, in consultation with Commerce and USDA, assess and update the interagency guidance cable, as needed, on promoting tobacco in light of questions raised by officials at posts overseas. State and USDA concurred with the recommendations."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-124?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Foreign-Trade Zones

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board's evaluation processes. The report (GAO-19-91) is titled "Foreign-Trade Zones: Board Should Document Consideration of All Required Criteria When Evaluating Applications".

The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R- Minnesota, on Nov. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board's evaluation processes. The report (GAO-19-91) is titled "Foreign-Trade Zones: Board Should Document Consideration of All Required Criteria When Evaluating Applications". The report was sent to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R- Minnesota, on Nov. 27. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.

What GAO Found: "The U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) has procedures that generally align with its regulations for evaluating production notifications and followed these procedures for all 59 notifications GAO reviewed. Notifications are filed by companies proposing to bring foreign components into a foreign-trade zone (FTZ) for use in manufacturing finished products, among other purposes. GAO found, for example, that, following Board procedures, Board staff evaluating the notifications collected and considered comments from the general public, industry specialists, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and recommended to the Board whether to authorize companies' proposed activities. Of the 59 notifications GAO reviewed for seven industry categories, 49 notifications either were approved or were approved with restrictions--for example, the proposed activity was authorized for a limited time period or certain duty benefits were denied for one or more foreign components. Ten notifications were denied for reasons such as new or complex policy issues that required further review.

The Board also has procedures that generally align with its regulations for evaluating production applications and followed these procedures for the three applications GAO reviewed. The applications were submitted by three of the companies whose notifications were denied. According to Board staff, if a notification is not approved or is approved with restrictions, a company may submit an application with additional details. Following Board procedures, Board staff, for example, collected and considered comments and recommended to the Board whether to authorize the proposed activities. Two of the applications were approved with restrictions, and the third was not approved. While the regulations require consideration of a number of criteria--for example, consistency with U.S. trade and tariff law--Board staff did not document consideration of all required criteria for two of the three applications, and the procedures do not require such documentation. Board staff said they document only the most relevant criteria in their reports. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should document its rationale for determining a criterion is not relevant and make this documentation readily available for examination. Without such documentation, the Board lacks an institutional record that all required criteria were considered and also lacks assurance that its decisions comply with U.S. trade and tariff law and public policy."

Why GAO Did This Study: "FTZs allow companies to reduce, eliminate, or defer duty payments on foreign goods imported into FTZs for distribution or as components of other products before transferring the finished goods into U.S. commerce or exporting them overseas. The value of foreign and domestic goods admitted to FTZs in 2016 exceeded $610 billion. Responsibilities of the Board, consisting of officials from the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and the Treasury, include evaluating production notifications and applications on the basis of factors such as the proposed activity's net effect on the U.S. economy. Federal regulations set forth requirements, pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934, for these evaluations.

GAO was asked to review the Board's evaluation processes. This report examines the extent to which the Board has established and followed procedures aligned with regulations for evaluating (1) notifications and (2) applications. GAO analyzed the Board's regulations and procedures and interviewed Commerce, Treasury, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. GAO also analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 59 of 293 notifications the Board evaluated from April 2012 through September 2017, which GAO selected to include a range of Board decisions and exclude pending decisions. GAO also analyzed all three applications the Board issued decisions on during that period."

What GAO Recommends: "Commerce should require Board staff to document consideration of all criteria required in the regulations when evaluating production applications. Commerce concurred with this recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-91?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#summary

GAO Issues Report on Navy Readiness

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. The report (GAO-19-229) is titled "Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet".

The report was sent to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, and Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, on Nov. 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. The report (GAO-19-229) is titled "Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet". The report was sent to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, and Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, on Nov. 19. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of itsattack submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance delays and operating and support cost expenditures. GAO's analysis of Navy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and 2018, attack submarines have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards. For example, the Navy originally scheduled the USS Boise to enter a shipyard for an extended maintenance period in 2013 but, due to heavy shipyard workload, the Navy delayed the start of the maintenance period. In June 2016, the USS Boise could no longer conduct normal operations and the boat has remained idle, pierside for over two years since then waiting to enter a shipyard (see figure). GAO estimated that since fiscal year 2008 the Navy has spent more than $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2018 constant dollars to support attack submarines that provide no operational capability--those sitting idle while waiting to enter the shipyards, and those delayed in completing their maintenance at the shipyards.

(Figure omitted)

The Navy has started to address challenges related to workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards. However, it has not effectively allocated maintenance periods among public shipyards and private shipyards that may also be available to help minimize attack submarine idle time. GAO's analysis found that while the public shipyards have operated above capacity for the past several years, attack submarine maintenance delays are getting longer and idle time is increasing. The Navy may have options to mitigate this idle time and maintenance delays by leveraging private shipyard capacity for repair work. But the Navy has not completed a comprehensive business case analysis as recommended by Department of Defense guidelines to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. Navy leadership has acknowledged that they need to be more proactive in leveraging potential private shipyard repair capacity. Without addressing this challenge, the Navy risks continued expenditure of operating and support funding to crew, maintain, and support attack submarines that provide no operational capability because they are delayed in getting into and out of maintenance."

Why GAO Did This Study: "According to the Navy, its 51 attack submarines provide the United States an asymmetric advantage to gather intelligence undetected, attack enemy targets, and insert special forces, among others. These capabilities make attack submarines some of the most-requested assets by the global combatant commanders.

GAO was asked to review the readiness of the Navy's attack submarine force. This report discusses the extent to which the Navy (1) has experienced maintenance delays in its attack submarine fleet and costs associated with any delays; and (2) has addressed any challenges and developed mitigation plans for any maintenance delays. GAO analyzed readiness information from fiscal years 2008-2018, operating and support costs, maintenance performance, and other data; visited attack submarines and squadrons; and interviewed public and private shipyard and fleet officials.

This is a public version of a classified report issued in October 2018. Information the Department of Defense deemed classified or sensitive, such as attack submarine force structure requirements and detailed data on attack submarine maintenance delays, has been omitted."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Navy conduct a business case analysis to inform maintenance workload allocation across public and private shipyards. The Department of Defense concurred with GAO's recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-229?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

GAO Issues Report on Agent Orange

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. The report (GAO-19-24) is titled "Agent Orange: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations".

The report was sent to Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, D-Northern Mariana ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. The report (GAO-19-24) is titled "Agent Orange: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations". The report was sent to Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D-Guam, ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Readiness, and Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, D-Northern MarianaIslands, on Nov. 15. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.

What GAO Found: "Available shipment documentation indicates that nearly all of the Agent Orange procured was either used in U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia, used for testing, damaged, or destroyed. However, some records are incomplete, such as shipment documentation and logbooks that identify ports where vessels stopped on the way to Southeast Asia. GAO obtained and reviewed shipment documentation for over 12.1 million of the 13.9 million gallons of Agent Orange procured by the Department of Defense (DOD). GAO reviewed logbooks for 96 percent (152 of 158) of those shipments and identified that vessels stopped at various ports on the way to Southeast Asia, including at least one vessel carrying Agent Orange that stopped at Guam. While the logbooks GAO reviewed identify when vessels left various ports as they traveled to and from Vietnam, they do not show whether and how much cargo was loaded or unloaded at those ports.

DOD's official list of herbicide testing and storage locations outside of Vietnam that is posted on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) website is inaccurate and incomplete. For example, the list lacks clarity in descriptive information and omits both testing and storage locations and additional time periods covered by testing events. Also, the list has not been updated in over a decade, though DOD and VA have obtained reports on its shortcomings since 2006. Both DOD and VA communicate with veterans in response to inquiries about Agent Orange, but some veterans GAO met with expressed confusion regarding how to obtain information on potential exposure. DOD officials acknowledged this confusion and stated that veterans are contacting multiple agencies to obtain such information. However, DOD and VA have not established a formal process for coordinating on how best to communicate information to veterans and the public regarding the presence of Agent Orange outside of Vietnam. Without a reliable list with complete and accurate information and a formal process for DOD and VA to coordinate on communicating this information, veterans and the public do not have quality information about the full extent of locations where Agent Orange was present and where exposure could potentially have occurred.

Challenges exist with testing for Agent Orange today due to degradation of the herbicide's two chemical components and a potential for sources of contamination other than the herbicide. According to scientific research, the half-life (average time for components to decrease by half of the original amount) of Agent Orange's two chemical components--n-butyl 2,4-D and n-butyl 2,4,5-T-- in soil can range from several days to many months, depending on conditions. The suggested half-life of the dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD--a by-product of the 2,4,5-T manufacturing process--is much longer, but there are multiple sources of dioxins, including the burning of wood and waste. DOD and the U.S. and Guam Environmental Protection Agencies are testing for the acid form of the components of Agent Orange at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. While acknowledging the low probability of conclusively identifying the components of Agent Orange on Guam, DOD has made a decision to move forward with testing to address veterans' and the public's concerns, and it expects to complete the updates for the sampling and analysis plan, field sampling, analysis, and reporting in early 2019."

Why GAO Did This Study: "The tactical herbicide Agent Orange was first produced in 1964, and some 12 million gallons were shipped from U.S. ports to Southeast Asia from 1965 to 1970. DOD suspended its use in 1970 and incinerated remaining stockpiles at sea in 1977. Congress has expressed long-standing interest in the effects of Agent Orange exposure.

The House report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision that GAO review the government's handling of Agent Orange on Guam. This report examines (1) information the federal government has about the procurement, distribution, use, and disposition of Agent Orange; (2) DOD and VA efforts to make information about where Agent Orange and its components were tested and stored available; and (3) challenges associated with Agent Orange testing. GAO reviewed agency policies, documents, and available archival records that GAO identified; interviewed DOD, VA, and other agency officials; and met with a non-generalizable sample of 38 veterans and a veterans service organization."

What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making six recommendations, including that DOD develop a process for updating its list of Agent Orange testing and storage locations, and that DOD and VA develop a process for coordinating the communication of information on where Agent Orange was known to have been present. DOD concurred with four recommendations. VA concurred with one recommendation and non-concurred with one recommendation."

The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-24?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Existing Customer Login