Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD spends billions of dollars each year to maintain key enterprise business operations intended to support the warfighter, including systems and processes related to the management of contracts, finances, the supply chain, and support infrastructure. The 2018 National Defense Strategy identified reform of DOD's business practices as one of DOD's three strategic goals. GAO has previously reported that weaknesses in these business operations have resulted in inefficiencies and billions of dollars wasted. GAO has also identified the need for a CMO with significant authority and experience to focus concerted attention on DOD's long-term business transformation efforts. Congress initially established such a position in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
This report evaluates the extent to which DOD has implemented its CMO position and issued guidance to communicate within the department the authorities and responsibilities of the position. GAO analyzed the statutory authorities and responsibilities assigned to the CMO position and evaluated DOD's actions to implement them.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to implement its Chief Management Officer (CMO) position which has been given the responsibility for managing DOD's business operations; however, unresolved issues remain for DOD to fully institutionalize the CMO's authorities and responsibilities. DOD has restructured the Office of the CMO (OCMO) to more closely align with the CMO's statutory authorities and responsibilities. Further, the OCMO is working to strengthen its data capabilities and has hired a Chief Data Officer and formed a Data Management and Analytics Steering Committee. Additionally, OCMO officials told us they are establishing cost baselines for each of DOD's major business functions.
However, DOD has not fully addressed three key issues related to the CMO's authorities and responsibilities:
The CMO's authority to direct the military departments on business reform issues . The law gave the CMO authority to direct the secretaries of the military departments on matters over which the CMO has responsibility. However, DOD has not determined how the CMO will exercise this authority, particularly when there is disagreement between the departments and the CMO.
The CMO's oversight responsibilities of the Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities (DAFAs) . The CMO is responsible for exercising authority, direction, and control over the designated DAFAs that provide shared business services—those business functions, such as supply chain and logistics and human resources operations, that are provided across more than one DOD organization. However, DOD has not determined how the CMO will exercise this authority, such as which DAFAs will submit their proposed budgets for CMO review.
Transfer of responsibilities from the Chief Information Officer to the CMO. Under the law, the CMO will exercise responsibilities relating to business systems and management that previously belonged to the Chief Information Officer. However, DOD has not determined which, if any, responsibilities will transition from the Chief Information Officer to the CMO or assessed the impact of such a transition on associated resources.
In part because these issues remain unresolved, DOD agreed that it does not have department-wide guidance that fully and clearly articulates how the CMO's authorities and responsibilities should be operationalized. Making determinations on the three unresolved issues and issuing guidance would help ensure a shared understanding throughout the department of the CMO's role in leading DOD's enterprise-wide business reform efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOD should address each of the three unresolved issues that impede its progress in institutionalizing statutory authorities and responsibilities, and issue guidance, such as a chartering directive that addresses how the CMO's authorities should be operationalized. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

CDC is responsible for detecting and responding to emerging health threats and controlling dangerous substances. In carrying out its mission, CDC relies on information technology systems to receive, process, and maintain sensitive data. Accordingly, effective information security controls are essential to ensure that the agency's systems and information are protected from misuse and modification.
GAO was asked to examine information security at CDC. In June 2018, GAO issued a limited official use only report on the extent to which CDC had effectively implemented technical controls and an information security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information on selected information systems.
This current report is a public version of the June 2018 report. In addition, for this public report, GAO determined the extent to which CDC has taken corrective actions to address the previously identified security program and technical control deficiencies and related recommendations for improvement. For this report, GAO reviewed supporting documents regarding CDC's actions on previously identified recommendations and interviewed personnel at CDC.

What GAO Found

As GAO reported in June 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) implemented technical controls and an information security program that were intended to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information systems and information. However, GAO identified control and program deficiencies in the core security functions related to identifying risk, protecting systems from threats and vulnerabilities, detecting and responding to cyber security events, and recovering system operations (see table below). GAO made 195 recommendations to address these deficiencies.
As of August 2018, CDC had made significant progress in resolving many of the security deficiencies by implementing 102 of 184 (about 55 percent) technical control recommendations, and partially implementing 1 of 11 information security program recommendations made in the June 2018 report. The figure shows the status of CDC's efforts to implement the 195 recommendations.
Additionally, CDC has created remedial action plans to implement the majority of the remaining open recommendations by September 2019. Until CDC implements these recommendations and resolves the associated deficiencies, its information systems and information will remain at increased risk of misuse, improper disclosure or modification, and destruction.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Investments in federal IT too often result in failed projects that incur cost overruns and schedule slippages. Recognizing the severity of issues related to government-wide IT management, Congress enacted federal IT acquisition reform legislation in December 2014. Among other things, the law states that OMB require in its annual IT capital planning guidance that CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development.
GAO was asked to review agencies' use of incremental development. This report addresses the number of investments certified by agency CIOs as implementing adequate incremental development and any reported challenges, and whether agencies' CIO certification policies and processes were in accordance with FITARA. GAO analyzed data for major IT investments in development, as reported by 24 agencies, and identified their reported challenges and use of certification information. GAO also reviewed the 24 agencies' policies and processes for the CIO certification of incremental development and interviewed OMB staff.

What GAO Found

Agencies reported that 62 percent of major information technology (IT) software development investments were certified by the agency Chief Information Officer (CIO) for implementing adequate incremental development in fiscal year 2017, as required by the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) as of August 2016. However, a number of responses for the remaining investments were incorrectly reported due to agency error. Officials from 21 of the 24 agencies in GAO's review reported that challenges hindered their ability to implement incremental development, which included: (1) inefficient governance processes; (2) procurement delays; and (3) organizational changes associated with transitioning from a traditional software methodology that takes years to deliver a product, to incremental development, which delivers products in shorter time frames. Nevertheless, agencies reported that the certification process was beneficial because they used the information from the process to assist with identifying investments that could more effectively use an incremental approach, and using lessons learned to improve the agencies' incremental processes.
As of August 2017, only 4 of the 24 agencies had clearly defined CIO incremental development certification policies and processes that contained: descriptions of the role of the CIO in the process; how the CIO's certification will be documented; and included definitions of incremental development and time frames for delivering functionality consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance (see figure).
In addition, OMB's fiscal year 2018 capital planning guidance did not establish how agency CIOs are to make explicit statements to demonstrate compliance with FITARA's incremental provisions, while the 2017 guidance did. However, OMB's fiscal year 2019 guidance provides clear direction on reporting incremental certification and is a positive step in addressing this issue.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 19 recommendations to 17 agencies, including 3 to improve reporting accuracy and 16 to update or establish certification policies. Eleven agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations, 1 partially agreed, and 5 did not state whether they agreed or disagreed. OMB disagreed with several of GAO's conclusions, which GAO continues to believe are valid, as discussed in the report.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's September 2018 report, entitled Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency ( GAO-18-591 ).

What GAO Found

GAO's analysis of available data found that the number of American Indian and Alaska Native (Native American) youth in federal and state and local justice systems declined across all phases of the justice process—arrest, adjudication, and confinement—from 2010 through 2016. During this period, state and local arrests of Native American youth declined by almost 40 percent from 18,295 in 2010 to 11,002 in 2016. The vast majority of Native American youth came into contact with state and local justice systems rather than the federal system.
However, more Native American youth were involved in the federal system than their percentage in the nationwide population (1.6 percent). For example, of all youth arrested by federal entities during the period, 18 percent were Native American. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, this is due to federal jurisdiction over certain crimes involving Native Americans. Comprehensive data on Native American youth involvement in tribal justice systems were not available for analysis. GAO's analysis showed several differences between Native American and non-Native American youth in the federal justice system. For example, the majority of Native American youths' involvement was for offenses against a person, such as assault and sex offenses. In contrast, the majority of non-Native American youths' involvement was for public order offenses (e.g., immigration violations) or drug or alcohol offenses. On the other hand, in state and local justice systems, the involvement of Native American and non-Native American youth showed many similarities, such as similar offenses for each group.
DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered at least 122 discretionary grants and cooperative agreements (grant programs) from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 that could be used to address juvenile delinquency among Native American youth. DOJ and HHS made approximately $1.2 billion in first-year awards to grantees during the period, of which the agencies awarded approximately $207.7 million to tribal governments or Native American organizations. Officials from the agencies, tribal governments, and Native American organizations identified factors they believe affect success in applying for grant programs. For example, some tribal governments and Native American organizations found being able to call or meet with federal officials during the application process helpful but found that short application deadlines are a challenge.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Automated vehicle technology may eventually make commercial trucking more efficient and safer, but also has the potential to change the employment landscape for nearly 1.9 million heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers, among others. GAO was asked to examine the potential workforce effects of automated trucking.
This report addresses (1) what is known about how and when automated vehicle technologies could affect commercial trucks; (2) what is known about how the adoption of automated trucks could affect the commercial trucking workforce; and (3) the extent to which DOT and DOL are preparing to assist drivers whose jobs may be affected. GAO reviewed research since 2014 on automated trucking technology, viewed demonstrations of this technology, and analyzed federal data on the truck driver workforce. GAO also interviewed officials from DOT and DOL, as well as a range of stakeholders, including technology developers, companies operating their own trucking fleets, truck driver training schools, truck driver associations, and workforce development boards.

What GAO Found

Automated trucks, including self-driving trucks, are being developed for long-haul trucking operations, but widespread commercial deployment is likely years or decades away, according to stakeholders. Most technology developers said they were developing trucks that can travel without drivers for part of a route, and some stakeholders said such trucks may become available within 5 to 10 years. Various technologies, including sensors and cameras, could help guide a truck capable of driving itself (see figure). However, the adoption of this technology depends on factors such as technological limitations and public acceptance.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed predicted two main scenarios for how the adoption of automated trucks could affect the trucking workforce, which varied depending on the future role of drivers or operators. Technology developers, among others, described one scenario in which self-driving trucks are used on highway portions of long-haul trips. Stakeholders noted this scenario would likely reduce the number of long-haul truck drivers needed and could decrease wages because of lower demand for such drivers. In contrast, groups representing truck drivers, among others, predicted a scenario in which a truck would have an operator at all times for complex driving and other non-driving tasks, and the number of drivers or operators would not change as significantly. However, stakeholders lacked consensus on the potential effect this scenario might have on wages and driver retention. Most stakeholders said automated trucking could create new jobs, and that any workforce effects would take time—providing an opportunity for a federal response, such as any needed policy changes.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is consulting with the Department of Labor (DOL) to conduct a congressionally-directed analysis of the workforce impacts of automated trucking by March 2019. As part of this analysis, DOT and DOL have coordinated to conduct stakeholder outreach. However, they do not currently plan to convene stakeholders on a regular basis to gather information because they have focused on completing this analysis first. Continuing to convene stakeholders could provide the agencies foresight about policy changes that may be needed to prepare for any workforce effects as this technology evolves.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that both DOT and DOL should continue to convene key stakeholders as the automated trucking technology evolves to help the agencies analyze and respond to potential workforce changes that may result. DOT and DOL agreed with the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Native American youth face unique challenges when it comes to their contact with justice systems. Research shows that risk factors such as high rates of poverty and substance abuse make them susceptible to being involved with justice systems at the federal, state and local, and tribal levels. GAO was asked to examine the extent of Native American youth involvement in justice systems, and federal grant programs that may help address Native American youth delinquency.
This report examines (1) what available data show about the number and characteristics of Native American youth in federal, state and local, and tribal justice systems; and (2) federal discretionary grant programs that could help prevent or address delinquency among Native American youth, and tribal government and Native American organizations' access to those grants. GAO analyzed federal, state and local, and tribal arrest, adjudication, and confinement data from 2010 through 2016 (the most recent available) from DOJ and the Department of the Interior. GAO also analyzed DOJ and HHS grant program award documentation from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, and application information for a sample of the grant programs chosen based on the amount of funding awarded and other factors. GAO also interviewed officials from DOJ, HHS, and 10 tribal governments or Native American organizations chosen to include successful and unsuccessful applicants to the grant programs, among other things.

What GAO Found

GAO's analysis of available data found that the number of American Indian and Alaska Native (Native American) youth in federal and state and local justice systems declined across all phases of the justice process—arrest, adjudication, and confinement—from 2010 through 2016. During this period, state and local arrests of Native American youth declined by almost 40 percent from 18,295 in 2010 to 11,002 in 2016. The vast majority of Native American youth came into contact with state and local justice systems rather than the federal system.
However, more Native American youth were involved in the federal system than their percentage in the nationwide population (1.6 percent). For example, of all youth arrested by federal entities during the period, 18 percent were Native American. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, this is due to federal jurisdiction over certain crimes involving Native Americans. Comprehensive data on Native American youth involvement in tribal justice systems were not available for analysis. GAO's analysis showed several differences between Native American and non-Native American youth in the federal justice system. For example, the majority of Native American youths' involvement was for offenses against a person, such as assault and sex offenses. In contrast, the majority of non-Native American youths' involvement was for public order offenses (e.g., immigration violations) or drug or alcohol offenses. On the other hand, in state and local justice systems, the involvement of Native American and non-Native American youth showed many similarities, such as similar offenses for each group.
DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered at least 122 discretionary grants and cooperative agreements (grant programs) from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 that could be used to address juvenile delinquency among Native American youth. DOJ and HHS made approximately $1.2 billion in first-year awards to grantees during the period, of which the agencies awarded approximately $207.7 million to tribal governments or Native American organizations. Officials from the agencies, tribal governments, and Native American organizations identified factors they believe affect success in applying for grant programs. For example, some tribal governments and Native American organizations found being able to call or meet with federal officials during the application process helpful but found that short application deadlines are a challenge.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Tax noncompliance, including refund fraud, threatens the integrity of the tax system and costs the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars annually. RRP is IRS's primary pre-refund system for detecting and preventing the issuance of invalid refunds. IRS reported that between January 2015 and November 2017 RRP prevented the issuance of more than $6.51 billion in invalid refunds.
GAO was asked to examine RRP's capabilities. This report (1) describes how RRP detects and selects suspicious returns and prevents invalid refunds; (2) assesses how IRS monitors and adapts RRP; and (3) examines what else, if anything, IRS can do to strengthen RRP and use it to address other enforcement issues.
GAO reviewed IRS plans for RRP and documents on its performance. GAO compared IRS's efforts to federal internal control standards, GAO's Fraud Risk Framework and IRS's strategic plan. GAO interviewed IRS officials who work on and use RRP.

What GAO Found

The Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Return Review Program (RRP) detects and selects potentially fraudulent returns to prevent the issuance of invalid refunds. According to IRS, RRP uses advanced analytic techniques and various data sources, including prior-year tax returns, to assign multiple scores to individual returns based on characteristics of identity theft and other refund fraud.
GAO found that IRS routinely monitors RRP's performance and adapts RRP to improve detection and address evolving fraud threats. Each year IRS updates RRP's detection tools to improve accuracy for the next filing season.
IRS has plans to continue developing RRP to further prevent invalid refunds, including using RRP to analyze and detect fraudulent business returns. However, GAO identified other opportunities for IRS to improve RRP's fraud detection and to use RRP for other enforcement activities:
RRP's ability to accurately detect and select suspicious returns could benefit from having information on Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements (W-2) available for analysis more frequently. As of April 2018, IRS officials said they were drafting but had not yet approved a work request to load W-2s into RRP daily instead of weekly for the 2019 filing season.
IRS could collect more information electronically from paper filers. One approach IRS evaluated in 2012 is to digitize some paper returns using barcoding technology, but it has not updated that analysis or expanded it to consider other digitizing technologies. IRS requested that Congress require that returns prepared electronically but filed on paper include a scannable code printed on the return, but Congress had not done so as of May 2018.
IRS could apply RRP's capabilities to improve other tax enforcement activities, such as audit selection or underreporting detection. Individuals' underreporting of tax liabilities accounts for hundreds of billions in lost tax revenue. Until IRS evaluates the costs and benefits of expanding RRP to analyze returns not claiming refunds, IRS will not have the information needed to make decisions that could help streamline processes for detecting and treating additional types of noncompliance and fraud.

What GAO Recommends

GAO suggests Congress consider legislation to require that returns prepared electronically but filed on paper include a scannable code. GAO is also making five recommendations to IRS, including that IRS take action to make incoming W-2s available to RRP more frequently, update and expand a 2012 analysis of the costs and benefits of digitizing returns filed on paper, evaluate the costs and benefits of expanding RRP to analyze returns not claiming refunds, and take any appropriate action based on those evaluations. IRS agreed with GAO's recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish this mission, EPA develops and enforces environmental regulations; awards grants; and studies environmental issues, among other things. GAO has conducted reviews focused on various aspects of EPA's operations and programs. Through this work, GAO has made numerous recommendations to improve EPA's performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
GAO follows up with executive branch agencies to determine the extent to which they have implemented its recommendations. In fiscal year 2015, GAO began sending letters annually to the heads of key executive branch agencies, including EPA, identifying unimplemented recommendations that warrant priority attention.
This statement discusses (1) the status of EPA's implementation of GAO recommendations made since fiscal year 2007 and how these recommendations relate to EPA's operations and programs and (2) examples of benefits realized by EPA and others based on GAO's work, including through the agency's implementation of these recommendations. This statement is based on GAO's work since fiscal year 2007 and on an analysis of recommendations GAO has made to EPA during this period.

What GAO Found

As of August 23, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had implemented 191 of the 318 recommendations GAO made since fiscal year 2007. EPA had not yet implemented the remaining 127 recommendations. The figure below shows the status of the 318 recommendations. The recommendations fall into six broad categories that relate to EPA programs and operations: (1) management and operations; (2) water issues; (3) environmental contamination and cleanup; (4) toxics, chemical safety, and pesticides; (5) public health and environmental justice; and (6) air quality, climate change, and energy efficiency. Almost three-fourths of the recommendations fall into the first three categories and include actions for EPA to better manage grants, improve the regulation of drinking water contaminants, and better manage hazardous waste cleanup. Most of the recommendations that have not yet been implemented concern EPA management and operations and water issues. For example, regarding management and operations, EPA has not yet implemented GAO's recommendation to link its workforce plan with its strategic plan to help ensure EPA has an appropriately skilled workforce to achieve its mission. Similarly, for water issues, EPA has not fully implemented GAO's recommendation to provide guidance to regional offices on overseeing state water quality programs.
GAO has identified many benefits—that is, process and programmatic improvements and financial benefits—based on EPA taking actions on GAO's recommendations and related work. For example, in October 2012, GAO recommended that EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) develop guidelines to assist states in developing uniform environmental analyses to meet state and federal requirements for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. EPA and USDA issued a joint memorandum in February 2017 that, among other things, highlighted best practices to eliminate duplicative environmental reviews. In addition, GAO has identified financial benefits from the implementation of its recommendations and related work. For example, during the course of work related to a July 2008 report, GAO identified an error in EPA's calculation of recoverable indirect costs for hazardous waste cleanup. EPA acknowledged the error and published revised indirect costs rates. As a result, GAO estimated in 2010 that EPA had recovered or would recover $42.2 million.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

In order for the Army to maintain its technological edge over potential adversaries, it plans to invest in near- and long-term modernization efforts. However, the Army has struggled with modernization initiatives in the past. For example, the Future Combat System was canceled after a cost of $21 billion and delivery of few new capabilities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to report on the Army's modernization strategy. This report assesses (1) the status of the Army's near- and long-term modernization efforts; and (2) the extent to which the Army has applied leading practices to these efforts. GAO reviewed Army directives, procedures, and policies; and compared the Army's efforts with leading practices for requirements and technology development, effective cross-functional teams, and mergers and organizational transformations.

What GAO Found

Since 2017, when the Army announced its initiative to update its forces and equipment with improved capabilities—known as modernization—it has
established and assigned eight cross-functional teams to pilot how to address these needs;
established the Army Futures Command as the focal point for modernization efforts, with a four-star general to oversee it; and
realigned over $1 billion in science and technology funding to support modernization efforts within the $7.5 billion expected to be spent over the next 5 years.
To date, the Army has generally applied leading practices identified by GAO to its modernization efforts. For example, the cross-functional team pilots generally applied leading practices for determining requirements and technology development and for establishing effective teams. Similarly, as the Army began the process of establishing the Army Futures Command, it has started to apply the leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations by establishing a clearly defined mission and providing a clear consistent rationale for the command. However, GAO identified other areas where the Army has not fully applied leading practices to its modernization efforts including the following:
Under the modernization effort, the Army plans to begin weapon systems development at a lower level of maturity than what is recommended by leading practices. GAO has raised concerns about this type of practice for almost two decades for other Army acquisitions, because proceeding into weapon systems development at earlier stages of technology maturity raises the risk that the resulting systems could experience cost increases, delivery delays, or failure to deliver desired capabilities. Taking this approach for acquisitions under the modernization effort raises similar concerns for the Army's six prioritized capability needs.
The Army has not developed a plan for capturing the lessons learned from the cross-functional team pilots, and therefore may miss an opportunity to leverage the experience of these teams in applying leading practices.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that the Army follow leading practices for maturing technologies to a higher level than currently planned and develop a plan to capture lessons learned from the cross-functional teams. DOD concurred with all the recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Law enforcement encounters with individuals with mental illness may require special training and skills and can sometimes involve volatile situations, risking tragic injuries or even death.
The 21st Century Cures Act includes a provision for GAO to review the practices that federal first responders, tactical units, and corrections officers (for the purposes of this study, “law enforcement officers and agents”) are trained to use in responding to incidents involving individuals with mental illness. This report addresses (1) challenges that federal law enforcement officers and agents face; (2) applicable training, policies, and guidance; and (3) existing leading practices, relevant tools, and efforts to leverage information.
GAO selected the five DHS and five DOJ law enforcement components (e.g., Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation) that represent the largest concentration of law enforcement officers within the two departments. GAO reviewed the training, policies, and guidance in place, as well as efforts to enhance them, and discussed these matters with knowledgeable officials. In addition, GAO held discussion groups with a nongeneralizable sample of law enforcement officers and agents, selected through component contacts, to discuss their perspectives. GAO also reviewed studies on law enforcement responses to individuals with mental illness to help identify leading practices and tools and interviewed stakeholders, selected through a structured process, to obtain their perspectives.

What GAO Found

Law enforcement officers and agents from the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) cited a number of challenges in our discussion groups related to their response to incidents involving individuals with a mental illness.
All of the federal law enforcement components in GAO's review either offer, receive, or are developing some form of training to their law enforcement officers and agents that addresses responding to incidents involving individuals with a mental illness. Further, all components have relevant policies or guidance in place, and all are undertaking efforts to enhance their practices in accordance with departmental guidance. Since DHS and DOJ components have varying missions and operational needs and interact with the public in different capacities, the nature and scope of training, as well as the number and duration of courses offered in response to individuals with mental illness varies; however, they generally include elements focusing on de-escalation and communication. In addition, DHS and DOJ both have efforts underway to have components review their training and policies under departmental guidance and plan to begin implementing any changes by 2018.
Stakeholders cited leading practices and tools for effective law enforcement responses, and DHS and DOJ components have generally leveraged information from other knowledgeable parties. For example, the Crisis Intervention Team approach involves training selected law enforcement officers on mental health topics and dispatching those officers on mental-health related calls. While models like this are typically used by state and local law enforcement agencies, their benefits could be considered in other settings such as federal law enforcement. DHS and DOJ officials are also using collaborative mechanisms within their departments, such as conference calls and working groups with officials, that have helped them leverage information from knowledgeable parties. In addition, DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which supports programs and initiatives in the areas of law enforcement, among other activities, has developed and makes publicly available resources such as its Police-Mental Health Collaboration Toolkit. BJA also is working to stand up a national training and technical assistance center to improve law enforcement responses to people with mental illness. While aimed at state, local, and tribal law enforcement, a BJA official also acknowledged that the center could serve as an additional resource for federal law enforcement agencies to consult as they review relevant trainings, policies, and guidance on this topic.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The 2017 hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) caused an estimated $265 billion in damage, primarily in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As of February 2019, Congress had provided over $35 billion to HUD for CDBG-DR grants to help communities recover. Communities may use these funds to address unmet needs for housing, infrastructure, and economic revitalization. GAO was asked to evaluate the federal government's response to the 2017 hurricanes. In this initial review of CDBG-DR, GAO examined, among other things, (1) the status of the 2017 grants, (2) HUD's review of the initial steps grantees have taken and its plans for future monitoring, and (3) challenges HUD and grantees face in administering grants.
GAO reviewed documentation from the four largest 2017 CDBG-DR grantees and HUD. GAO also reviewed prior work on CDBG-DR and interviewed officials from HUD and the four grantees.

What GAO Found

As of September 2018, the four states and territories that received the most 2017 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds had signed grant agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Before signing the agreements, HUD certified the grantees' financial processes and procedures. It also approved the grantees' assessments of their capacity to carry out the recovery and of unmet needs (losses not met with insurance or other forms of assistance). Before funding begins to reach disaster victims, the grantees need to take additional steps, such as finalizing plans for individual activities. As of January 2019, Texas had drawn down about $18 million (of $5 billion) for administration and planning only, and Florida had drawn down about $1 million (of $616 million) for administration, planning, and housing activities. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands had not drawn down any of the $1.5 billion and $243 million, respectively, they had been allocated.
HUD lacks adequate guidance for staff reviewing the quality of grantees' financial processes and procedures and assessments of capacity and unmet needs, and has not completed monitoring or workforce plans. The checklists used to review grantees' financial processes and procedures and assessments ask the reviewer to determine if the grantee included certain information, such as its procurement processes, but not to evaluate the adequacy of that information. In addition, the checklists, which include a series of “yes” or “no” questions, do not include guidance that the HUD reviewer must consider. HUD also does not have a monitoring plan that identifies the risk factors for each grantee and outlines the scope of monitoring. Further, HUD has not developed a workforce plan that identifies the critical skills and competencies HUD needs and includes strategies to address any staffing gaps. Adequate review guidance, a monitoring plan, and strategic workforce planning would improve HUD's ability to oversee CDBG-DR grants.
Without permanent statutory authority and regulations such as those that govern other disaster assistance programs, CDBG-DR appropriations require HUD to customize grant requirements for each disaster in Federal Register notices—a time-consuming process that has delayed the disbursement of funds. In a July 2018 report, the HUD Office of Inspector General found that as of September 2017, HUD used 61 notices to oversee 112 active CDBG-DR grants. Officials from one of the 2017 grantees told us that it was challenging to manage the multiple CDBG-DR grants it has received over the years because of the different rules. CDBG-DR grantees have faced additional challenges such as the need to coordinate the use of CDBG-DR funds with other disaster recovery programs that are initiated at different times and administered by other agencies. HUD officials said that permanently authorizing CDBG-DR would allow HUD to issue permanent regulations for disaster recovery. Permanent statutory authority could help address the challenges grantees face in meeting customized grant requirements for each disaster, such as funding lags, varying requirements, and coordination with multiple programs. The expected increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events underscores the need for a permanent program to address unmet disaster needs.

What GAO Recommends

Congress should consider permanently authorizing a disaster assistance program that meets unmet needs in a timely manner. GAO also makes five recommendations to HUD, which include developing guidance for HUD staff to use in assessing grantees, developing a monitoring plan, and conducting workforce planning. HUD generally agreed with three recommendations and partially agreed with two, which GAO clarified to address HUD's comments.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

One aspect of DOE's mission is to secure U.S. leadership in energy technologies. To that end, DOE funds R&D for energy projects, including for advanced fossil energy (innovative technologies for coal, natural gas, and oil). DOE provides funding for R&D projects, including large projects designed to demonstrate the commercial viability of technologies. Also, DOE is authorized to make loan guarantees to support certain energy projects through its Loan Guarantee Program, which is administered by its Loan Programs Office.
GAO was asked to review DOE's funding for advanced fossil energy projects. This report describes DOE's funding for advanced fossil energy R&D projects started from fiscal years 2010 through 2017 and the types of projects and recipients that received funding, among other objectives. For purposes of this report, GAO used the term funding to mean obligations.
GAO analyzed relevant laws, regulations, and guidance; DOE data on R&D funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2017; and DOE documents. GAO also interviewed DOE officials in the Office of Fossil Energy, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the Loan Programs Office.

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy (DOE) provided $2.66 billion in funding, or obligations, for 794 research and development (R&D) projects started from fiscal years 2010 through 2017 to develop advanced fossil energy technologies. Such technologies include processes for converting coal into synthesis gas composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and recovering methane from gas hydrates. Of the $2.66 billion, DOE provided $1.12 billion in funding for 9 later-stage, large demonstration projects, which were to assess the readiness for commercial viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. CCS involves capturing man-made carbon dioxide at its source and storing it permanently underground. DOE provided the remaining $1.54 billion in funding for 785 other projects in amounts that were relatively small—over half were for less than $1 million.
Six demonstration projects researched CCS technologies using coal, while three used other fuels. The nine demonstration projects received funding ranging from $13 million to $284 million. As shown in the figure, three projects implementing CCS technologies were active as of the end of fiscal year 2017. Also, DOE withdrew its support for four projects, and two projects were withdrawn by the recipients—all before completion. These projects did not reach completion due to several factors, such as a lack of technical progress, or changes in the relative prices of coal and natural gas that made the projects economically unviable.
Of the 785 other projects, about 89 percent involved R&D of coal technologies, such as coal gasification—the conversion of carbon-containing material into synthesis gas. The other 11 percent of the 785 projects involved R&D of oil and gas technologies, such as the development of technologies to find, characterize, and recover methane from gas hydrates.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Arsenic, an element in the earth's crust, can be harmful to human health and may be present in water and certain foods, such as rice. Rice may be more susceptible to arsenic contamination than other crops due to the flooded conditions in which it is typically grown. FDA and USDA work to address food safety risks. FDA's responsibilities for rice include regulatory and research programs; USDA's include research programs.
GAO was asked to review issues related to arsenic and rice. GAO examined (1) what NRC and recent key scientific reviews have reported about the effects of ingestion of arsenic on human health, (2) the extent to which FDA and USDA have managed the risk to human health from arsenic in rice, and (3) the extent to which FDA has coordinated with USDA and other federal agencies on actions to manage the risk. GAO analyzed a 2013 NRC report on inorganic arsenic, 14 reviews of scientific studies on the human health effects of ingesting arsenic published from January 2015 to June 2017, and agency documents; interviewed agency officials; and compared good practices with actions FDA and USDA took to manage risk and that FDA took to coordinate.

What GAO Found

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, in 2013, and more recent key scientific reviews reported evidence of associations between long-term ingestion of arsenic and adverse human health effects, such as cardiovascular disease. Many of the studies NRC reviewed as part of its survey of the scientific literature examined the ingestion of arsenic in drinking water, but others looked at arsenic from all sources, including dietary sources such as rice. NRC stated that evidence suggests that food, particularly rice, may be a significant source of inorganic arsenic, the more toxic of the two forms of arsenic; however, consumption of rice and levels of arsenic in rice vary widely, making it difficult to estimate arsenic intake from rice. NRC identified stronger evidence for some health effects at higher levels of arsenic—defined by NRC as 100 parts per billion or higher in drinking water—than at lower levels, which are more common in the United States, and noted that research on the health effects of ingesting lower levels of arsenic is ongoing.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have taken actions to manage the risk of arsenic in rice to human health, including assessing the type and prevalence of health effects that may result from long-term ingestion of arsenic in rice. FDA also has taken action to publicly communicate and report on the risk. In 2016, FDA issued a risk assessment about the human health effects from long-term ingestion of arsenic in rice and draft guidance recommending industry not exceed a level of 100 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal. FDA noted it issued this guidance because infants face a higher risk owing to their less-varied diets. However, FDA has not updated the risk assessment, which was informed by a review of scientific studies published before February 2015, or finalized the draft guidance. In prior work, GAO has found that sharing risk information and incorporating stakeholder feedback can help organizations identify and better manage risks, as well as increase transparency and accountability to Congress and taxpayers. FDA officials stated that they may update the risk assessment based on newly-available information and consider public comments before finalizing the draft guidance. However, FDA officials could not provide a specific timeline for either. By developing such a timeline, FDA could help clarify when it will take action and improve the transparency of its decisions.
FDA coordinated with USDA and other federal agencies on actions to manage the risk of arsenic in rice to varying extents. For example, FDA and USDA coordinated on developing arsenic detection methods for rice to a limited extent, although both agencies have crosscutting strategic goals for developing detection methods for foodborne contaminants, including arsenic. GAO has noted in prior work that developing interagency mechanisms to coordinate crosscutting issues may reduce potentially duplicative efforts. FDA and USDA officials stated that they coordinated on an informal basis but have no mechanism for coordinating more formally. By developing a coordination mechanism, FDA and USDA could enhance their ability to use their resources efficiently and avoid potentially duplicative efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making five recommendations, including that FDA develop a timeline for updating its risk assessment and finalizing its draft guidance and that FDA and USDA develop a coordination mechanism for developing methods to detect foodborne contaminants, including arsenic. FDA and USDA generally agreed with the recommendations.


Question:
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 Found

The trustee councils, composed of 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.
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.

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.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

In response to an aging workforce, countries around the world have developed policies to encourage older workers to work longer to improve the financial sustainability of national pension systems and address shortages of skilled workers. Phased retirement is one option that can be used to encourage older workers to stay in the workforce. GAO was asked to look at phased retirement programs in the United States and other countries. In June 2017, GAO issued a report (GAO-17-536) that looked at phased retirement in the United States, where formal phased retirement programs are as yet uncommon. This report looks at phased retirement in other countries.
Specifically, GAO examined (1) the extent to which phased retirement exists in other countries with aging populations, (2) the key aspects of phased retirement programs in selected countries, and (3) the experiences of other countries in providing phased retirement and how their experiences can inform policies in the United States.
GAO analyzed relevant data, reviewed academic research, and conducted interviews to identify countries with phased retirement, and selected four countries with national policies permitting phased retirement programs with broad coverage for case studies. GAO also conducted interviews with government officials, unions, employer associations, and other experts.

What GAO Found

GAO's review of studies and interviews with employment and retirement experts identified 17 countries with aging populations and national pension systems similar to the Social Security program in the United States. These countries also have arrangements that allow workers to reduce their working hours as they transition into retirement, referred to as “phased retirement.” Phased retirement arrangements encourage older workers who might otherwise retire immediately to continue working, which could help alleviate pressures on national pension systems as well as address labor shortages of skilled workers. The17 countries had established phased retirement programs in different ways: at the national level via broad policy that sets a framework for employers; at the industry or sector level; or by single employers, often through the collective bargaining process.
GAO's four case study countries—Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (UK)—were described as employing various strategies at the national level to encourage phased retirement, and specific programs differed with respect to design specifics and sources of supplemental income for participants. Canada and the U.K. were described as having national policies that make it easier for workers to reduce their hours and receive a portion of their pension benefits from employer-sponsored pension plans while continuing to accrue pension benefits in the same plan. Experts described two national programs available to employers and workers in Germany, with one program using tax preferences. Experts also said Sweden implemented a policy in 2010 that allows partial retirement and access to partial pension benefits to encourage workers to stay in the labor force longer.
Even with unique considerations in the United States, other countries' experiences with phased retirement could inform U.S. efforts. Some employer-specific conditions, such as employers offering employee-directed retirement plans and not being covered by collective bargaining are more common in the United States, but the case study countries included examples of designs for phased retirement programs in such settings. Certain programs allow access to employer-sponsored or national pension benefits while working part-time. For example, experts said the U.K. allows workers to draw a portion of their account based pension tax-free, and one U.K. employer GAO spoke to also allows concurrent contributions to those plans. In addition, experts said that certain program design elements help determine the success of some programs. Such elements could inform the United States experience. For instance, U.S. employers told us that while offering phased retirement to specific groups of workers may be challenging because of employment discrimination laws, a union representative in Germany noted that they reached an agreement where employers may set restrictions or caps on participation, such as 3 percent of the workforce, to manage the number of workers in the program. Employers in the U.S. could explore whether using a similar approach, taking into consideration any legal concerns or other practical challenges, could help them to control the number of workers participating in phased retirement programs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations in this report.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Individuals who do not agree with the initial decision on a claim for Social Security disability benefits can ultimately appeal the decision by requesting a hearing before one of SSA's approximately 1,500 administrative law judges. However, the rate at which these judges have allowed benefits has varied, raising questions about the reasons for this variation. GAO was asked to review aspects of SSA's oversight of judges' decisions.
This report examines (1) to what extent allowance rates vary across administrative law judges, and factors associated with this variation; and (2) the extent to which SSA has processes to monitor the accuracy and consistency of hearings decisions.
GAO developed a statistical model to analyze SSA data on adult disability decisions made by administrative law judges from fiscal years 2007 through 2015, the most current data available at the time of GAO's analysis; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency documents; and interviewed SSA officials and chief judges in SSA's 10 regions, as well as officials from organizations representing judges, disability claimants, and claimant representatives.

What GAO Found

Allowance rates—the rate at which Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative law judges allowed disability benefits to be paid when claimants appealed—varied across judges, even after holding constant certain characteristics of claimants, judges, hearing offices, and other factors that could otherwise explain differences in allowance rates. Specifically, GAO estimated that the allowance rate could vary by as much as 46 percentage points if different judges heard a typical claim (one that was average in all other factors GAO analyzed). SSA officials said that this level of variation is not surprising, given the complexity of appeals and judicial discretion. Nonetheless, the variation declined by 5 percentage points between fiscal years 2007 and 2015 (see figure), a change officials attributed to enhanced quality assurance efforts and training for judges. GAO also identified various factors that were associated with a greater chance that a claimant would be allowed benefits. In addition to characteristics related to disability criteria, such as the claimant's impairment and age, GAO found that claimants who had representatives, such as an attorney or family member, were allowed benefits at a rate nearly 3 times higher than those without representatives. Other factors did not appear related to allowance rates, such as the percentage of backlogged claims in a hearing office.
SSA has various reviews to monitor the accuracy and consistency of hearings decisions by administrative law judges, but some of these reviews may overlap and SSA has not systematically evaluated them. Specifically, SSA conducts five types of quality assurance reviews of hearings decisions, several of which have similar goals and may look at similar claims. SSA has not evaluated the efficiency or effectiveness of these reviews, despite spending at least $11 million on them in fiscal year 2016. Moreover, the agency has struggled to sustain all of its quality reviews due to competing priorities—two of the five reviews were curtailed in 2016 because SSA reassigned staff to help expedite claims decisions. By evaluating which quality assurance reviews are most effective and efficient in improving accuracy and consistency, SSA would be better positioned to meet its goals within its resources.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making two recommendations, including that SSA systematically evaluate its quality assurance reviews and take steps to reduce or better manage any unnecessary overlap among them. SSA concurred and plans to address them through a comprehensive assessment of its oversight.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 includes a provision for GAO to assess multiple characteristics of final significant regulatory actions promulgated by executive departments during presidential transition periods (September 23 through January 20) at the end of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama's administrations and compare them to each other and to regulations issued during the same 120-day period in nontransition years since 1996.
Among other objectives, GAO assessed the extent to which there was variation in 1) the number of regulations, their scope, and other indicators; and 2) agencies' reported compliance with procedural requirements for promulgating the regulations. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed the text of the regulations published in the Federal Register , and reviewed the universe of all 527 economically significant final regulations (generally those with an annual effect of $100 million or more) published during the specified transition and nontransition periods and a generalizable stratified random sample of 358 of the 1,633 significant final regulations published during the same time periods.

What GAO Found

During transition periods at the end of presidential administrations, agencies published more final regulations and more frequently provided advanced notice to the public on those regulations compared to nontransition periods. The Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations published on average roughly 2.5 times more economically significant regulations during transition periods than during nontransition periods. But agencies more often, relative to nontransition periods, provided the public an opportunity to influence the development of the transition-period regulations by providing advanced notice of their issuance and opportunities to comment on proposed regulations before they were finalized.
In their published regulations, agencies reported that compliance with four of five procedural requirements was high during both transition and nontransition periods, but not with the Congressional Review Act (CRA). During all periods, agencies reported complying with requirements, such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for nearly all economically significant regulations and the majority of significant regulations. Agencies less often complied with one or more CRA requirements. (See figure.) Though agencies are responsible for complying with CRA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for oversight of agencies' rulemaking, consistent with law, and reviews regulations before publication, which provides an opportunity to identify and help agencies avoid potential noncompliance. The most common CRA deficiency was agencies' failure to provide Congress the required time to review and possibly disapprove regulations, which GAO has also identified as a deficiency in previous work. Economically significant regulations for which OMB completed its review within 3 months before the planned effective date were at high risk of not complying with CRA, thus increasing the risk that agencies would not provide Congress with the required time for its reviews.
Economically Significant Regulations Determined to be Noncompliant with the Congressional Review Act

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB, as part of its regulatory review process, identify economically significant regulations at potential risk of not complying with CRA and work with agencies to ensure compliance. OMB staff did not agree or disagree with the recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

State staffs Foreign Service employees to more than 270 embassies and consulates worldwide to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. In 2009 and 2012, GAO identified ongoing Foreign Service staffing gaps.
GAO was asked to review State's Foreign Service staffing. This report examines (1) vacancies in State's Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State's efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed State's Global Employment Management System data as of March 2018. The system includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, including the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions and whether each position is filled or vacant. GAO also reviewed its relevant prior reports and State workforce planning documents. In addition, GAO interviewed State staff at 10 overseas posts, selected on the basis of large numbers of Foreign Service vacancies and diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant at these posts, among other factors.

What GAO Found

The Department of State's (State) data show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts since 2008. According to the data, 13 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of March 2018. This percentage is similar to the percentages GAO reported for 2008 and 2012, when 14 percent of these positions were vacant. In addition, State's data show persistent vacancies at overseas posts in generalist positions that help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and in specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. State's data also show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts with State's highest foreign policy priorities and in regions with security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests.
According to staff at overseas posts, Foreign Service vacancies adversely affect State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Staff at overseas posts told us that vacancies increase workloads, contributing to low morale and higher stress for Foreign Service staff and that vacancies in Political and Economic positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—limit the reporting on political and economic issues that posts are able to provide to State headquarters. Notably, officials also stated that vacancies in specialist positions may heighten security risks at overseas posts and disrupt post operations. For instance, some overseas post staff said that vacancies in Information Management positions had increased the vulnerability of posts' computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats.
State described various efforts—implemented by multiple offices in the department —to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies, but these efforts are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. An example of State's efforts is the “Hard-to-Fill” program, which allows Civil Service staff an opportunity to fill a Foreign Service vacancy on a single overseas tour. According to GAO's 2017 High-Risk Series report, an agency should design and implement an action plan—integrated across its relevant offices—that defines the root causes of all skills gaps and suggests corrective measures. However, State has not developed such an action plan for reducing persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Without developing an integrated action plan, overseas Foreign Service vacancies may persist. As a result, State's ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals and help ensure secure and efficient operations could be adversely impacted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies. State concurred with our recommendation and noted that it will take steps to develop an integrated action plan.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Patriot is a mobile Army surface-to-air missile system deployed worldwide to defend critical assets and forces. The Army plans to extend the life of Patriot equipment until at least 2048 through maintaining and modernizing the system. To achieve this, the Army performs two maintenance processes, restoring equipment returning from combat back to pre-deployment conditions (“reset”) and comprehensively overhauling ("recapitalizing") a portion of its equipment annually.
The conference report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision that GAO assess the Army's Patriot maintenance and recapitalization plans to ensure that operational needs are met. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which the Army's reset process supports the timely delivery of Patriot equipment back to units; and (2) describes the Army's plans for supporting the long-term viability of the Patriot system through recapitalization and any challenges associated with its plans. GAO analyzed Army guidance and equipment and maintenance data; interviewed Army officials; and assessed the Army's recapitalization plans.

What GAO Found

The Army uses reset and recapitalization to extend the life of its Patriot surface-to-air missile system. The reset process—which is intended to repair recently-deployed equipment—has often returned equipment to Patriot units late, which has affected unit training. GAO found that of the seven Patriot battalions that underwent reset from fiscal years 2014 through 2017, only one received its equipment within 180 days, in accordance with Army policy (see figure). Patriot unit officials told GAO that such delays reduced the time available for unit training, creating challenges in meeting training requirements as units prepare for their next mission. The Army has identified and analyzed several factors affecting reset timeliness, ranging from supply chain issues to transportation. However, the Army has not comprehensively analyzed the relative importance of these factors. Such an analysis would better position the Army to target its efforts effectively to ensure units receive equipment back in a timely manner.
Patriot Equipment Reset Timeliness for Units, Fiscal Years 2014-2017
With respect to recapitalization, the Army has decided to recapitalize each battalion set of Patriot equipment once every 15 years to support the system's long-term viability through 2048, while recognizing that this approach introduces some challenges. The Army would prefer to recapitalize Patriot equipment every 10 years, but Army officials stated this is not feasible for the following reasons:
Reducing the amount of equipment for ongoing operational commitments to increase the pace of recapitalization is not feasible given current commitments and the projected security environment.
Buying extra equipment to provide to additional units undergoing recapitalization is not feasible because the Army has prioritized replacing the Patriot radar to improve its capability to defend against advanced threats.
Army officials told GAO that the current pace of recapitalization is not optimal and could introduce challenges, such as the possibility of equipment failure and increased maintenance costs. However, the Army has concluded that the current pace is the best path forward.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Army conduct an analysis of the primary factors affecting the Patriot program's reset timeliness to identify their relative importance and develop and implement appropriate corrective actions. The Department of the Army concurred with GAO's recommendation.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Both the Coast Guard—a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are investing significant resources to recapitalize their aging fleets of ships. Ensuring that the Coast Guard and NOAA maintain their ships and address potential capability gaps is vital for protecting national security and scientific interests.
This statement summarizes lessons that GAO has identified from its prior reviews of Coast Guard and Navy acquisitions, which can be applied to the Coast Guard's and NOAA's shipbuilding efforts. Specifically, this testimony provides information on, among other things, (1) long-term strategic planning for acquisitions, (2) the need for a sound business case, and (3) the leveraging of the Navy's acquisition resources and shipbuilding expertise. In its prior work, GAO reviewed Coast Guard and Navy programs and interviewed officials. For this testimony, GAO obtained publicly available information on NOAA's ship acquisition efforts.

What GAO Found

GAO has found that acquisition programs can benefit from long-term strategic planning that identifies how tradeoff decisions would affect the future of the acquisition portfolio. In July 2018, GAO found the Coast Guard continues to manage its acquisitions through its annual budget process and the 5-year Capital Investment Plan. As a result of this planning process, the Coast Guard has continued to defer planned acquisitions to future years and left a number of operational capability gaps unaddressed. Incorporating the use of a long-term strategic plan and additional tradeoff discussion into the Capital Investment Plan could lead to more informed choices before irreversible commitments are made.
GAO's prior work has also found that acquisition programs should start with solid business cases before setting program baselines and committing resources. At the heart of a business case is a knowledge-based approach—successful shipbuilding programs build on attaining critical levels of knowledge at key points in the shipbuilding process before significant investments are made (see figure).
In September 2018, GAO found the Coast Guard did not have this type of sound business case when it established the program baselines for its polar icebreaker program in March 2018 due to risks in technology, design, cost, and schedule. For example, the Coast Guard's planned delivery dates were not informed by a realistic assessment of shipbuilding activities, but rather were primarily driven by the potential gap in icebreaking capabilities once the Coast Guard's only operating heavy polar icebreaker reaches the end of its service life.
Agencies have partnered with the Navy to take advantage of its resources and shipbuilding expertise, including the Coast Guard when acquiring the polar icebreakers. For example, in September 2018, GAO found that the Coast Guard and the Navy had established an integrated program office and a ship design team. These teams provided input to Navy cost estimators, who developed the polar icebreaker program's cost estimate.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has previously recommended that the Coast Guard develop a 20-year fleet modernization plan, reflect acquisition trade-off decisions in its annual Capital Investment Plans, and address risks to establish a sound business case for its polar icebreakers acquisition. DHS concurred with these recommendations and is taking steps to implement them.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress has long recognized that IT has the potential to enable federal agencies to accomplish their missions more quickly, effectively, and economically. However, fully exploiting this potential has presented challenges to covered agencies, and the federal government's management of IT has produced mixed results.
As part of its effort to reform the government-wide management of IT, in December 2014 Congress enacted FITARA. The law included specific requirements related to enhancing Chief Information Officers' (CIO) authorities, improving the risk management of IT investments, reviewing agencies' portfolio of IT investments, consolidating federal data centers, and purchasing software licenses. GAO has reported numerous times on agencies' effectiveness in implementing the provisions of the law and highlighted agencies that have had success in implementing selected provisions.
In this report, GAO identifies practices that agencies have used to effectively implement FITARA. GAO selected five provisions of FITARA to review: (1) CIO authority enhancements; (2) enhanced transparency and improved risk management; (3) portfolio review; (4) data center consolidation; and (5) software purchasing. GAO then selected nine agencies that had success in implementing at least one of the five provisions. GAO compiled practices where at least one agency was better positioned to implement a provision or realized an IT management improvement or cost savings.

What GAO Found

Nine selected agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, and Veterans Affairs; the Agency for International Development; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the General Services Administration) identified 12 practices that helped them to effectively implement one or more Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act provisions (commonly referred to as FITARA). The following figure identifies the 12 practices, including the four overarching ones, considered vital to implementing all provisions.
By applying the overarching practices, covered agencies were better positioned to implement FITARA. In addition, by implementing the practices relative to the five FITARA provisions GAO selected, covered agencies realized information technology (IT) management improvements, such as decommissioning old systems and cost savings.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

HUD administers the Public Housing program, which provides federally assisted rental units to low-income households through PHAs. In 2010, HUD estimated its aging public housing stock had $25.6 billion in unmet capital needs. To help address these needs, the RAD program was authorized in fiscal year 2012. RAD allows PHAs to move (convert) properties in the public housing program to Section 8 rental assistance programs, and retain property ownership or transfer it to other entities. The conversion enables PHAs to access additional funding, including investor equity, generally not available for public housing properties.
GAO was asked to review public housing conversions under RAD and any impact on residents. This report addresses, among other objectives, HUD's (1) assessment of conversion outcomes; (2) oversight of resident safeguards; and (3) provisions to help preserve the long-term affordability of units. GAO analyzed data on RAD conversions through fiscal year 2017; reviewed a sample of randomly selected, nongeneralizable RAD property files; and interviewed HUD officials, PHAs, developers, academics, and affected residents.

What GAO Found

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) put procedures in place to evaluate and monitor the impact of conversion of public housing properties under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. RAD's authorizing legislation requires HUD to assess and publish findings about the amount of private-sector leveraging. HUD uses a variety of metrics to measure conversion outcomes. But, the metric HUD uses to measure private-sector leveraging—the share of private versus public funding for construction or rehabilitation of assisted housing—has limitations. For example, HUD's leveraging ratio counts some public resources as leveraged private-sector investment and does not use final (post-completion) data. As a result, HUD's ability to accurately assess private-sector leveraging is limited.
HUD does not systematically use its data systems to track effects of RAD conversions on resident households (such as changes in rent and income, or relocation) or monitor use of all resident safeguards. Rather, since 2016, HUD has required public housing agencies (PHA) or other post-conversion owners to maintain resident logs and collect such information. But the resident logs do not contain historical program information. HUD has not developed a process for systematically reviewing information from its data systems and resident logs on an ongoing basis. HUD has been developing procedures to monitor compliance with some resident safeguards—such as the right to return to a converted property—and begun a limited review of compliance with these safeguards. However, HUD has not yet developed a process for monitoring other safeguards—such as access to other housing voucher options. Federal internal control standards require agencies to use quality information to achieve objectives, and obtain and evaluate relevant and reliable data in a timely manner for use in effective monitoring. Without a comprehensive review of household information and procedures for fully monitoring all resident safeguards, HUD cannot fully assess the effects of RAD on residents.
RAD authorizing legislation and the program's use agreements (contracts with property owners) contain provisions intended to help ensure the long-term availability of affordable units, but the provisions have not been tested in situations such as foreclosure. For example, use agreements between HUD and property owners specify affordability and use restrictions that according to the contract would survive a default or foreclosure. HUD officials stated that HUD intends to develop procedures to identify and respond to risks to long-term affordability, including default or foreclosure in RAD properties. However, HUD has not yet done so. According to federal internal control standards, agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving goals and objectives. Procedures that address oversight of affordability requirements would better position HUD to help ensure RAD conversions comply with program requirements, detect potential foreclosure and other risks, and take corrective actions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes five recommendations to HUD intended to improve leveraging metrics, monitoring of the use and enforcement of resident safeguards, and compliance with RAD requirements. HUD agreed with our recommendations to improve metrics and build on existing oversight.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

CMS has noted that it is important for enrollees to maintain continuous health insurance coverage to ensure the stability of the FFE. Certain rules allow for enrollment flexibilities—such as special enrollment periods and a 3-month grace period that is allowed before coverage is terminated for recipients of federal income-based subsidies who default on their premiums. However, some issuers have stated that these rules could be misused, resulting in non-continuous coverage. There are little data on the extent to which enrollees maintain continuous coverage during a year and, more specifically, on the extent to which coverage is terminated for nonpayment of premiums.
GAO examined (1) the extent to which FFE enrollees maintained coverage in 2015 and (2) the extent to which CMS has reliable data on termination of enrollees' coverage for nonpayment of premiums. GAO analyzed CMS's 2015 FFE enrollment data (the most recent year of available data); interviewed CMS officials and selected issuers; and reviewed applicable laws and guidance from CMS.

What GAO Found

In 2015, 9.2 million individuals enrolled in the federal health insurance exchange in 37 states. Eligible individuals (e.g., U.S. citizens or those lawfully present in the United States) are able to enroll in health coverage during the annual open enrollment period. Outside of open enrollment, eligible individuals may enroll in coverage or change their coverage selection during special enrollment periods. Individuals may enroll under a special enrollment period if, for example, they lost their coverage from another source, such as Medicaid or an employer, or due to relocation. Under federal regulations, enrollees may not sign up for coverage under a special enrollment period citing loss of coverage if the coverage was lost due to nonpayment of premiums.
About half (53 percent) of the 2015 federally facilitated exchange (FFE) enrollees maintained continuous health insurance coverage throughout the year—that is, they began coverage between January 1 and March 1, 2015, and maintained it through December 31, 2015. These individuals had an average of 11.6 months of coverage. The remaining 47 percent of FFE enrollees started their coverage later or ended it during the year; they averaged 5.0 months of coverage. Enrollees could have voluntarily ended coverage—due to gaining other coverage, for example—or have had it terminated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or the issuers of coverage for valid reasons, including losing eligibility for exchange coverage or for nonpayment of premiums.
CMS does not have reliable data on issuer-generated terminations of coverage for enrollees' nonpayment of premiums. Although CMS and issuers share data on the terminations each generates and reconcile their data on a monthly basis to ensure data accuracy, the agency does not require issuers to consistently report data on the reasons for terminations. Officials told us they do not track these data because they are not critical to ensure the accuracy of the federal subsidy amounts—which is the main function of the monthly reconciliation process. Further, CMS lacks a transparent process to ensure the accuracy of these data, as the monthly reconciliation files transmitted between CMS and issuers do not include a place to capture data on termination reasons. Issuers said that they are therefore unable to ascertain whether data they provide on the reasons for termination match CMS's data, and thus they cannot make corrections where necessary.
The agency's lack of reliable data on terminations for nonpayment limits its ability to effectively oversee certain federal regulations. For example, because CMS is not systematically tracking these data, it cannot tell whether enrollees applying for coverage under a special enrollment period had lost their coverage for nonpayment of premiums—in which case they would be ineligible for the special enrollment period per federal regulations. CMS could capitalize on its existing process, already familiar to issuers, by adding a variable that captures data on termination reasons to the monthly reconciliation file. By taking this step, in addition to requiring issuers to report these data, CMS could help ensure it has reliable and transparent data on terminations of enrollee coverage for nonpayment of premiums, and it could use these data to assess the effects of CMS policies and the overall stability of the exchange.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CMS ensures it has (1) complete data on terminations of coverage for nonpayment of premiums; and (2) a transparent process to reconcile discrepancies and ensure the accuracy of these data. The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with both recommendations.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Coast Guard, a component within DHS, is spending billions of dollars to acquire assets, such as cutters and aircraft. This portfolio of major acquisition programs is intended to help the Coast Guard accomplish its missions—including interdicting illegal drugs and search and rescue missions. GAO's extensive prior work on Coast Guard acquisitions has found that the Coast Guard's reliance on its annual budget process to manage its portfolio is a major management challenge. In the report issued today, GAO discusses particular challenges with the Coast Guard's approach in managing its acquisition portfolio, such as not performing a collective assessment of the portfolio to ensure affordability.
This statement addresses the challenges the Coast Guard faces in (1) managing its overall acquisition portfolio, and (2) sustaining aging assets. This statement is based on GAO's extensive body of published and ongoing work examining the Coast Guard's acquisition efforts over several years.

What GAO Found

The Coast Guard's approach of relying on the annual budget process and the 5-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) to manage its acquisition portfolio does not provide the best basis for making decisions to develop a more balanced and affordable portfolio in the long term. Specifically, the Coast Guard's annual budget-driven trade-off approach creates constant churn as program baselines must continually re-align with budget realities instead of budgets being formulated to support program baselines. Further, Coast Guard officials have told GAO the CIP reflects trade-off decisions made as part of the annual budget process, but it does not describe the effects of those trade-offs because including such information is not statutorily required. This short-term approach has also left the Coast Guard with a bow wave of near-term unfunded acquisition programs, putting future missions at risk. Until these trade-offs are transparent to all stakeholders and decision makers, the effectiveness of Coast Guard's long-term acquisition portfolio planning is limited.
Until new assets being acquired become available, the Coast Guard plans to rely on aging assets, many of which are already past their intended service lives—the time an asset is expected to operate. For example, the Coast Guard plans to replace the Medium Endurance Cutters (see figure) with the Offshore Patrol Cutters beginning in 2023, but the Medium Endurance Cutters exhausted their intended service lives in 2014.
The Coast Guard plans to extend service lives for some of the Medium Endurance Cutters to keep them operating longer; however, maintenance for these vessels is becoming more expensive, and some systems are obsolete. GAO will continue to monitor the maintenance effort for the Medium Endurance Cutter and the Offshore Patrol Cutter acquisition in an annual review of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) major acquisition programs.

What GAO Recommends

The report on which this statement is primarily based ( GAO-18-454 ) recommends that the Coast Guard work with Congress to include in its annual CIP a discussion of how trade-off decisions could affect other acquisition programs. DHS agreed with this recommendation. GAO has also made other recommendations in this area in the past, as discussed in this testimony.


Question:
Why GAO Did This Study

According to TSA, the federal agency responsible for securing the nation's civil aviation system, the introduction of explosive devices in air cargo shipments is a significant threat. To mitigate this threat, TSA is to review the security procedures carried out by all air carriers with U.S.-bound flights and at foreign airports servicing those air carriers. In addition, TSA assesses the commensurability of foreign countries' air cargo security programs.
GAO was asked to evaluate TSA's progress in assessing and mitigating air cargo security risks. This report addresses (1) steps TSA takes to help ensure that U.S-bound air cargo is secure, (2) the status of TSA's efforts to recognize and monitor foreign governments' air cargo security programs, and (3) the extent to which TSA measures the effectiveness of its efforts to secure U.S.-bound air cargo. GAO reviewed TSA policies and procedures, analyzed TSA program data, observed a nongeneralizable sample of 17 air carrier inspections at two foreign airports (selected based on high air cargo volume and other factors), and interviewed TSA, foreign government, and air carrier representatives.

What GAO Found

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inspects air carriers and assesses foreign airports to help ensure the security of U.S.-bound air cargo.
Air carrier inspections . GAO observed 17 air carrier inspections and found that TSA inspectors consistently followed TSA procedures. Further, GAO's analysis of TSA data found air carriers were in full compliance with cargo security requirements in 84 percent of the nearly 5,000 cargo inspections conducted during fiscal years 2012 through 2017. TSA officials were able to resolve a majority of the violations identified during the inspection process.
Foreign airport assessments . GAO analysis of TSA data found that about 75 percent of the foreign airport assessments that TSA conducted during fiscal years 2012 through 2017 fully complied with international air cargo security standards. As of the end of 2017, foreign officials had addressed about 40 percent of the non-compliance issues. TSA continues to work with foreign officials to address the remaining non-compliance issues.
As of June 2018, TSA had recognized the national cargo security programs (NCSP) of the European Union and 12 other countries as commensurate with TSA's, and TSA uses a variety of mechanisms to monitor NCSP implementation. TSA's process for NCSP recognition, which is voluntary, involves comparing air cargo security requirements to TSA's and conducting visits to the countries to validate their use. Once TSA determines a program is commensurate with TSA's, it monitors NCSP implementation through regular air carrier inspections, foreign airport assessments, and dialog with government officials. TSA may decide not to recognize a country's NCSP but, instead, make recommendations for improving air cargo security. In countries where TSA has not recognized their NCSP, all U.S.-bound cargo is subject to TSA security requirements.
TSA's performance measures do not allow it to specifically determine the effectiveness of its efforts to secure U.S.-bound air cargo. For example, TSA measures whether foreign airports take actions to address all noncompliance issues identified during airport assessments, but such a broad measure could obscure progress made in resolving cargo-specific vulnerabilities. Similarly, TSA officials stated that they are developing a measure to gauge the effectiveness of air carrier inspections, but they do not plan to differentiate efforts to secure air cargo from those for securing passengers. Developing and monitoring outcome-based performance measures that separately account for cargo noncompliance issues and violations could help TSA better determine the extent to which its foreign airport assessments and air carrier inspections improve the security of U.S.-bound air cargo. In addition, TSA measures the number of countries it has recognized in the NCSP Recognition Program, but this metric does not address the effectiveness of the program. Developing and monitoring outcome-based performance measures for the NCSP Recognition Program would help TSA better determine whether the resources invested are yielding the intended results. This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in October 2018. Information that TSA deemed to be sensitive is omitted from this report.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that TSA develop and monitor outcome-based performance measures to assess the effectiveness of (1) the cargo portion of foreign airport assessments, (2) air carrier cargo inspections, and (3) the NCSP Recognition Program. TSA concurred with the recommendations.