{"input": "", "context": "To participate in federal student aid programs, postsecondary schools must be 1) certified by Education as eligible to participate in federal student aid programs, 2) accredited by a recognized accrediting agency— generally nongovernmental, nonprofit entities—and 3) authorized by the state in which the school is physically located. (See table 1.) FSA is responsible for ensuring that schools with access to federal student aid are eligible and capable of properly administering federal student aid funds, according to standards established by Education and authorized by the Higher Education Act. These standards include requirements for schools related to communication, personnel, policies, procedures and reporting, and adequate checks and balances in a system of internal controls, among others. FSA is also responsible for conducting ongoing financial oversight of schools that receive federal student aid. This includes reviewing annual financial statement audits to assess a school’s financial responsibility and providing additional oversight to schools that do not meet financial responsibility standards outlined in the Higher Education Act. Schools that participate in federal student aid programs generally are required to submit annual compliance audits. The compliance audit provides information that FSA can use to assess the school’s administration of federal student aid programs and to identify schools that require additional oversight because they do not fully comply with federal student aid administrative requirements. The OIG is required to assess the quality of school compliance audits and selects a sample to review each year. The OIG reviews the audit documentation to ensure that it supports the auditor’s opinions and that the audit results are reliable. According to agency guidance, FSA staff should refer compliance audits to the OIG for a quality review if they have any concerns about the quality of the audits. Both FSA and OIG officials stated that the OIG has primary responsibility for issues related to audit quality. When a school first applies to be certified to administer federal student aid, FSA will either approve the school for provisional certification— generally for 1 year—or deny certification (see fig. 1). Once a school is approved for initial certification and applies for recertification, FSA will provisionally or fully recertify the school, or deny certification. According to FSA procedures, FSA uses provisional certification for initial, or first time, applicants, as well as schools that are applying for recertification. Provisional certification is the only approval status available to new schools. In addition, FSA may decide to recertify a school provisionally if it determines that a school has not fully complied with federal student aid requirements. FSA prohibits provisionally certified schools from opening new campus locations or offering new programs without approval from FSA, and provisionally certified schools that are denied recertification have a less substantive appeals process than fully certified schools. Further, recertified schools in provisional status are subject to more FSA oversight than schools that are fully certified. FSA procedures allow for some discretion in determining for how long to certify a school. Provisional recertification generally lasts 1 to 3 years, while full recertification generally lasts 4 to 6 years. Education’s FSA regional staff draw information from a variety of sources during the certification process to assess a school’s capability to administer federal student aid. According to FSA documents, regional staff are to review information collected from schools and third parties, such as annual compliance audits conducted by independent auditors, among other information sources. FSA staff responsible for different functional areas, such as financial and compliance audits, accreditation status, and student loan default rates, compile and review information on schools, according to FSA procedures. FSA officials told us that these staff meet to discuss any potential program eligibility issues and to ensure that all information relevant to a school is considered before making a certification decision. FSA’s certification procedures outline some of the key information that regional staff should assess, some of which is relevant to both initial and recertification decisions, and some of which is specific to each type of certification process (see fig. 2). Documents and policies provided by schools: FSA regional staff are directed to review documents submitted by schools, including school catalogs, and certain school policies—such as admissions and student refund policies—that are relevant to assessing administrative capability. Proof of accreditation: School accreditors are responsible for applying and enforcing standards to help ensure that the education offered by schools is of sufficient quality to achieve program objectives. Accreditation of schools, which generally includes a site visit, takes place on a cycle that may range from every few years to as many as 10 years. Proof of state authorization: States are responsible for authorizing schools to offer postsecondary education and respond to student complaints. The process for approving schools varies from state to state and may include on-site visits. Audited financial statements: FSA regional staff are directed to review information in audited financial statements to assess schools’ financial health. Schools are required to have annual audited financial statements issued by an independent certified public accountant or a government auditor. Self-reported school data: FSA regional staff are instructed to review data on continual student enrollment in eligible academic programs and student withdrawal rates. Pre-certification review and school outreach: FSA staff are responsible for contacting school personnel to verify the school’s application information and discuss relevant policies, procedures, and other materials relevant to administering federal student aid. FSA visits to newly certified schools: After schools first apply and are provisionally certified, Education requires FSA regional staff to contact them within 3 months and schedule an on-site school visit. Schools cannot administer federal student aid until they are certified, so FSA has limited information on how newly certified schools are administering federal student aid programs. School visits provide FSA with an opportunity to collect additional information about a provisionally certified school’s ability to administer federal student aid. Some FSA regional staff we interviewed told us that on-site visits to newly certified schools provide valuable first-hand information about whether these schools are administering federal student aid in accordance with program requirements. If FSA regional staff find that a school is having difficulties administering federal student aid, FSA procedures direct regional staff to assist schools by providing clarification and guidance on federal student aid policies, recommending additional training for school officials, and helping schools develop a plan to track and report on their corrective actions, among other things. Compliance audits: FSA staff are directed to review information in compliance audits to determine if schools are complying with specific federal student aid requirements. Generally, compliance audits are required to be conducted annually by an independent auditor, and submitted with the school’s audited financial statements. Program reviews: FSA regional staff are also responsible for conducting program reviews, usually on site, which evaluate school compliance with federal requirements and can provide more in-depth information on schools than compliance audits, according to some FSA staff we interviewed. Generally, FSA selects schools for program reviews that it considers to be at risk for noncompliance, according to Education documents. FSA conducts approximately 250 to 300 program reviews per year, according to FSA documentation. FSA staff from all four of our selected regional offices told us they consider results from any recent program review in decisions about recertification and noted that such information, when available, is valuable for assessing schools’ administrative capability. Education data: FSA regional office staff are also directed to review data on student loan default rates. From calendar years 2006 through 2017, FSA approved most schools applying for certification to receive federal student aid, according to Education data. From 2006 through 2017, FSA approved 89 percent of schools new to administering federal student aid for provisional certification and denied 11 percent of schools overall (see fig. 3). Denial rates for initial certification were 11 percent for public and for-profit schools and 14 percent for nonprofit schools. For more information on 2006-2017 school certification outcomes by year, see appendix I. FSA regional staff responsible for reviewing school applications told us that schools are denied initial certification for issues such as a lack of accreditation, not offering eligible programs for federal student aid, or not meeting other statutory eligibility requirements. For example, FSA staff said that for-profit and vocational schools that apply for initial certification are required to provide an eligible program continuously for 2 years prior to their initial application. FSA staff may also advise schools that do not meet basic eligibility requirements not to apply, which could result in fewer initial certification denials overall. In addition, FSA staff said they often work with schools to address compliance problems, for example, by providing guidance on revising school policies that do not meet requirements, so that the schools are able to meet FSA’s certification requirements. From 2006 through 2017, 76 percent of schools applying for recertification were fully recertified, 21 percent were provisionally recertified, and 3 percent were denied recertification. Sixty-six percent of for-profit schools were fully recertified, 28 percent were provisionally recertified, and 6 percent were denied. In comparison, 86 percent of public schools were fully recertified, 14 percent were provisionally recertified, and fewer than 1 percent were denied. Nonprofit schools had rates similar to public schools, with 80 percent fully recertified, 18 percent provisionally recertified, and 2 percent denied (see fig 4). FSA staff from all four of our selected regional offices told us that they typically deny recertification when a school no longer meets eligibility requirements, such as losing accreditation, or when there is significant evidence of serious issues or massive wrongdoing, such as fraud. For example, managers in one regional office told us they denied recertification for a school because they had evidence that the school was accepting students without valid high school diplomas and referring them to diploma mills to boost enrollment. Staff in two FSA regional offices told us that they can also choose to fully recertify a school for shorter periods of time if they uncover issues related to administrative capability. For example, one regional staff member told us that when they found a school’s default rate for one federal student loan program had been high for the prior 3 years, the regional office decided to shorten the school’s full recertification period from 6 to 4 years, to allow FSA staff to review the school again sooner. FSA staff from all four of our selected regional offices told us that they provisionally certify schools for a variety of reasons, including when a school submits a late compliance audit or when a recent compliance audit indicates that a school could potentially have significant problems. Generally, schools in provisional certification status are subject to additional monitoring by FSA compared to schools that have been fully certified. For example, Education officials said that if they have concerns about a provisionally certified school’s student withdrawal rate, they can add provisional conditions requiring the school to submit monthly enrollment rosters for review. Staff in two FSA regional offices told us that in other cases, if they have concerns about how a school is administering federal student aid or suspected fraud, they can put a school on provisional status and conduct a program review to collect more detailed information on compliance with federal requirements. Education data also show that most schools remain in provisional status the first time they are recertified—62 percent from 2006 to 2017. In contrast, FSA staff fully recertified over three-quarters of schools that applied for recertification a second time during the same time period (see table 2). For more information on first and second recertification outcomes by school sector, see appendix II. We found that FSA generally relies on compliance audits as the only annual on-site review to determine how schools applying for recertification administer federal student aid. The audits provide direct information collected by independent auditors from school visits and file reviews examining how schools administer federal student aid and comply with program requirements. For example, OIG audit guidance directs auditors to check whether schools are distributing federal student aid to eligible students and accurately calculating student loan amounts. FSA officials and staff from all four of our selected regional offices said that compliance audits are a key source of information they use to assess a school’s administrative capability. Officials from Education’s OIG said that the quality of information in compliance audits varies substantially and depends on the auditor. The OIG has found quality problems in some of the compliance audits it selects—based on auditor and school risk factors—for its annual quality control reviews. Because the OIG selects higher risk audits to review, its reviews are more likely to detect problems, and OIG officials said they cannot make any conclusions about the overall prevalence of quality problems in compliance audits. However, our analysis of OIG quality review data found that of the 739 compliance audits reviewed by the OIG from fiscal years 2006 through 2017, the OIG passed 23 percent (173) and failed 59 percent (436). An additional 18 percent (130) passed with deficiencies. For example, across the 41 compliance audits it reviewed in fiscal year 2016, the OIG identified 264 quality deficiencies with the auditor’s work, according to our analysis of quality reviews provided by the OIG. The most frequently cited issues in these 41 audits were: reporting (24 audits), such as lack of evidence that the auditor tested whether the school correctly reported student enrollment status; student eligibility (20 audits), such as lack of evidence that the auditor verified student school attendance; and administrative capability (19 audits), such as lack of evidence that the auditor determined whether the accreditor had been notified about a change in school ownership within 10 days. FSA officials also identified quality issues with the compliance audits of some schools. FSA headquarters officials and staff we interviewed in several regional offices said they have seen schools with significant program review findings that had not been identified in annual compliance audits. FSA staff said they have referred some compliance audits to the OIG for quality reviews when they have had questions about the thoroughness of an audit. We also found a couple of examples in our review of school certification documents in which the findings identified in a school’s compliance audit were different from the findings identified by FSA in a program review of the same school covering the same time period. In one case, FSA staff said they probably would have fully recertified the school if they had relied solely on the compliance audit. Instead, they used the program review to determine that the school should be provisionally recertified. Compliance audits and program review findings are based on a sample of student records, and FSA staff said some differences in findings might be explained by differences in the records reviewed. FSA and OIG officials cited several issues that can affect the quality of compliance audits. FSA and OIG officials we interviewed said that some auditors conducting compliance audits have insufficient training in federal student aid, which contributes to audit quality problems. OIG staff also said that even if an auditor meets the general training hour requirements for auditors, the training content may not be relevant for federal student aid audits. In addition, FSA and OIG officials said some schools— particularly smaller schools—tend to hire less experienced auditors in order to save money, often resulting in poor quality audits. FSA officials in most selected regional offices said that additional training on federal student aid for auditors who are new to or unfamiliar with federal student aid could help improve audit quality. FSA and the OIG recently have taken steps to address audit quality and the information available to FSA staff when making certification decisions. These efforts include: Training for auditors: The OIG has taken steps to enhance training offered to auditors of schools’ administration of federal student aid and is exploring opportunities to provide additional training. In December 2017, the OIG and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants cosponsored training for auditors on the OIG’s 2016 revised guide for audits of for-profit schools, and other topics related to auditing federal student aid. The training included discussion of common audit quality issues and areas of highest risk. According to an OIG official, about 200 auditors attended, and after the event, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the OIG posted a recording of the training to their websites to make it available to additional auditors. In addition, OIG officials said they maintain an email account—listed on the OIG website—through which auditors can ask questions and receive responses. In March 2018, the OIG posted frequently asked questions and answers to the website. Timeliness of OIG quality reviews: Both FSA and OIG officials said that the OIG has recently renewed efforts to issue compliance audit quality reviews more quickly, after several years in which staffing shortages and other issues led to some delayed quality reviews. Guidance to schools on selecting an auditor: OIG officials said that at the 2017 FSA training conference for school financial aid staff, they presented to more than 400 participants about factors schools should consider when hiring an auditor. For example, they suggested that schools verify the licenses of certified public accountants, ask about the types of engagements an auditing firm has conducted, request and check references, check for any actions that may have been taken against a firm, and ask whether the auditor has been subject to a previous review by the OIG or another agency. FSA officials said they expected to invite the OIG to present at future FSA conferences, and OIG officials said they were seeking additional opportunities to share information on auditor selection with schools, including a planned presentation to an association of postsecondary schools. FSA working group: FSA recently established a working group to update its guidance to FSA staff on how to coordinate with the OIG to address compliance audits with quality problems. Among other topics, the working group has consulted with the OIG about how schools are made aware of the OIG’s findings regarding the quality of their audits. FSA officials said that OIG officials have provided input and feedback on FSA’s proposed changes to the guidance. Audit guide revisions: In addition, OIG and FSA staff told us they expected the OIG’s 2016 revisions to the for-profit school audit guide to improve the quality of compliance audits for those schools. They said that because the revised guide clarified some issues that were confusing to auditors in the previous guide issued in 2000, auditors might be better able to implement the guidance. The audit guide revisions include more testing and reporting requirements, clarified procedures, and guidance on issues such as fraud reporting and coordinating financial and compliance audits. The 2016 revisions first applied to audits for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2016, and FSA began receiving those audits at the end of 2017. In addition, although the OIG’s 2016 revisions only apply to audits of for-profit schools, FSA officials said they planned to establish a working group to consider improvements to audit guidance for public and nonprofit schools. FSA and OIG efforts to address audit quality could help ensure that compliance audits provide accurate and reliable information on school administrative capability for Education’s recertification decisions. We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. Education’s Office of Inspector General provided technical comments, which we considered and incorporated as appropriate. Education did not provide other comments on the report. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Education; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. In addition to the contact named above, Michelle St. Pierre (Assistant Director), Kristy Kennedy (Analyst-in-Charge), Edward Bodine, Marissa Jones, and Mark Ward made significant contributions. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Deborah Bland, Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Monika Gomez, Sheila R. McCoy, Jessica Orr, Mimi Nguyen, John Mingus, Rhiannon Patterson, Monica Savoy, Benjamin Sinoff, and Rosemary Torres Lerma.", "answers": ["Education provided over $122 billion in grants, loans and work study funds to help students pay for college at about 6,000 schools in fiscal year 2017. Education is responsible for certifying that these schools are eligible for and capable of properly administering federal student aid funds. Schools are required to submit an annual compliance audit that provides information on schools' administrative capability, which Education considers in its school certification decisions. GAO was asked to review Education's process for certifying schools to receive federal student aid. This report examines (1) how Education certifies schools to administer federal student aid and how frequently schools are approved and denied certification; and (2) the role of compliance audits in the certification process and what, if any, steps Education has taken to address the quality of the audit information. GAO analyzed data on school certification outcomes for calendar years 2006-2017 (when GAO determined data were most reliable); reviewed data and reports summarizing Education's reviews of compliance audit quality for fiscal years 2006-2017; reviewed a non-generalizable sample of 21 school certification decisions from fiscal years 2015 and 2016, selected for a mix of decisions, school characteristics, and geographic regions; examined relevant federal laws, regulations, policy manuals and guidance; and interviewed Education officials. The Department of Education (Education) is responsible for evaluating a variety of information to determine whether a postsecondary school should be certified to administer federal student aid programs, and agency data show that it approves most schools that apply. Education procedures instruct regional office staff to review school policies, financial statements, and compliance audits prepared by independent auditors, among other things. Education can certify schools to participate in federal student aid programs for up to 6 years, or it can provisionally certify them for less time if it determines that increased oversight is needed—for example, when a school applies for certification for the first time or when it has met some but not all requirements to be fully certified. In calendar years 2006 through 2017, Education fully or provisionally approved most schools applying for initial or recertification to receive federal student aid (see figure). Note: Schools applying for certification for the first time and approved are placed in provisional certification. In deciding whether to certify schools, Education particularly relies on compliance audits for direct information about how well schools are administering federal student aid, and Education's offices of Federal Student Aid and Inspector General have taken steps to address audit quality. The Inspector General annually selects a sample of compliance audits for quality reviews based on risk factors, such as auditors previously cited for errors. In fiscal years 2006 through 2017, 59 percent of the 739 selected audits received failing scores. Audits that fail must be corrected; if not, the school generally must repay federal student aid covered by the audit. Because higher risk audits are selected for review, Inspector General officials said they cannot assess the overall prevalence of quality problems in compliance audits. These two Education offices have taken steps to improve audit quality. For example, the Inspector General offered additional training to auditors on its revised 2016 audit guide and provided guidance to schools on hiring an auditor, while Federal Student Aid created a working group to strengthen its procedures for addressing poor quality compliance audits. Education's efforts to address audit quality could help ensure that these audits provide reliable information for school certification decisions. GAO is not making recommendations in this report."], "length": 3366, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "81e845f35acd55c1f6b4edda428a0a52fd22bade5be9cf13"}
{"input": "", "context": "Cybersecurity incidents continue to impact federal entities and the information they maintain. According to OMB’s 2018 annual FISMA report to Congress, agencies reported 35,277 information security incidents to DHS’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) in fiscal year 2017. As shown in figure 1, these incidents involved threat vectors, such as web-based attacks, phishing attacks, and the loss or theft of computer equipment, among others. These incidents and others like them can pose a serious challenge to economic, national, and personal privacy and security. The following examples highlight the impact of such incidents: In March 2018, the Department of Justice reported that it had indicted nine Iranians for conducting a massive cybersecurity theft campaign on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. According to the department, the Iranians allegedly stole more than 31 terabytes of documents and data from more than 140 American universities, 30 U.S. companies, and 5 federal government agencies, among other entities. In March 2018, a joint alert from DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation stated that, since at least March 2016, Russian government actors had targeted U.S. government entities and critical infrastructure sectors, including the energy, nuclear, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. In June 2015, the Office of Personnel Management reported that an intrusion into its systems had affected the personnel records of about 4.2 million current and former federal employees. Then, in July 2015, the agency reported that a separate but related incident had compromised its systems and the files related to background investigations for at least 21.5 million individuals. The federal approach and strategy for securing information systems is prescribed by federal law and policy. FISMA sets requirements for effectively securing federal systems and information. In addition, the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 requires protecting federal networks through the use of federal intrusion prevention and detection capabilities. Further, Executive Order 13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, directs agencies to manage cybersecurity risks to the federal enterprise by, among other things, using the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (cybersecurity framework). FISMA was enacted to improve federal cybersecurity and clarify government-wide responsibilities. The law is intended to provide for improved oversight of federal agencies’ information security programs. Specifically, the law provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls over information resources that support federal operations and assets. The law is also intended to ensure the effective oversight of information security risks, including those throughout civilian, national security, and law enforcement agencies. FISMA assigns OMB and DHS oversight roles in ensuring federal agencies’ compliance with the law. Among other things, FISMA requires OMB to develop and oversee the implementation of policies, principles, standards, and guidelines on information security in federal agencies, except with regard to national security systems. The law also assigns OMB the responsibility of requiring agencies to identify and provide information security protections commensurate with assessments of risk to their information and information systems. The law further requires DHS to administer the implementation of agency information security policies and practices for non-national security information systems, in consultation with OMB, by developing, issuing, and overseeing implementation of binding operational directives; monitoring agency implementation of information security policies and practices; and convening meetings with senior agency officials to help ensure their effective implementation of information security policies and practices, among other things. FISMA assigned to NIST the responsibility for developing standards and guidelines that include minimum information security requirements. To this end, NIST has issued several publications to provide guidance for agencies in implementing an information security program. For example, NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53 provides guidance to agencies on the selection and implementation of information security and privacy controls for systems. FISMA also assigns to the head of each executive branch agency, responsibility for providing information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency. The law also delegates to the agency chief information officer (CIO), or comparable official, the authority to ensure compliance with FISMA requirements. The CIO is responsible for designating a senior agency information security officer whose primary duty is information security. In addition, the law requires agencies to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide information security program to secure federal information systems. Specifically, these information security programs are to provide risk-based protections for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency. Further, FISMA requires agencies to comply with DHS binding operational directives, OMB policies and procedures, and NIST federal information processing standards. FISMA also has reporting requirements for OMB and federal agencies. Specifically, OMB is to report annually, in consultation with DHS, on the effectiveness of agency information security policies and practices, including a summary of major agency information security incidents and an assessment of agency compliance with NIST standards. Further, the law requires agencies to report annually to OMB, DHS, certain congressional committees, and the Comptroller General of the United States on the adequacy and effectiveness of their information security policies, procedures, and practices, as well as their compliance with FISMA. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, among other things, sets forth authority for enhancing federal intrusion prevention and detection capabilities among federal entities. The act contains several provisions for DHS and OMB. Specifically, the act requires that DHS deploy, operate, and maintain capabilities to prevent and detect cybersecurity risks in network traffic traveling to or from an agency’s information system. DHS is to make these capabilities available for use by any agency. In addition, the act requires DHS to improve intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, as appropriate, by regularly deploying new technologies and modifying existing technologies. The act also requires OMB and DHS, in consultation with appropriate agencies, to review and update government-wide policies and programs to ensure appropriate prioritization and use of network security monitoring tools within agency networks, and to brief appropriate congressional committees. In May 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13800, which sets policy for managing cybersecurity risk as an executive branch enterprise. Specifically, it outlines actions to enhance cybersecurity across federal agencies and critical infrastructure to improve the nation’s cyber posture and capabilities against cybersecurity threats. To this end, the order states that the President will hold executive agency heads accountable for managing agency-wide cybersecurity risk and directs each executive agency to use the NIST cybersecurity framework to manage those risks. The cybersecurity framework, which provides guidance for cybersecurity activities, is based on five core security functions: Identify: Develop an organizational understanding to manage cybersecurity risk to systems, people, assets, data, and capabilities. Protect: Develop and implement appropriate safeguards to ensure delivery of critical services. Detect: Develop and implement appropriate activities to identify the occurrence of a cybersecurity event. Respond: Develop and implement appropriate activities to take action regarding a detected cybersecurity incident. Recover: Develop and implement appropriate activities to maintain plans for resilience and to restore capabilities or services that were impaired due to a cybersecurity incident. According to NIST, these five functions should be performed concurrently and continuously to address cybersecurity risk. In addition, when considered together, they provide a high-level, strategic view of the life cycle of an organization’s management of cybersecurity risk. Within the five functions are 23 categories and 108 subcategories that include controls for achieving the intent of each function. Appendix II provides a description of the cybersecurity framework categories and subcategories of controls. In February 2013, we reported that the government had issued a variety of strategy-related documents that addressed priorities for enhancing cybersecurity within the federal government, as well as for encouraging improvements in the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure within the private sector. However, we noted that no overarching cybersecurity strategy had been developed that articulated priority actions, assigned responsibilities for performing them, and set time frames for their completion. Accordingly, we recommended that the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator in the Executive Office of the President develop an overarching federal cybersecurity strategy that included all key elements of the desirable characteristics of a national strategy. These characteristics would include, among other things, milestones and performance measures for major activities to address stated priorities; cost and resources needed to accomplish stated priorities; and specific roles and responsibilities of federal organizations related to the strategy’s stated priorities. Since that time, the executive branch has made progress toward outlining a federal strategy for confronting cyber threats. For example, in September 2018, we reported that recent executive branch initiatives that identify cybersecurity priorities for the federal government provide a good foundation toward establishing a more comprehensive strategy. Nevertheless, we pointed out that additional efforts were needed to address all of the desirable characteristics of a national strategy that we recommended. Specifically, recently issued executive branch strategy documents did not include key elements of desirable characteristics that can enhance the usefulness of a national strategy as guidance for decision makers in allocating resources, defining policies, and helping to ensure accountability. For example, these strategy documents did not generally include: milestones and performance measures to gauge results; resources needed to carry out the goals and objectives; and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for key agencies, such as DHS, the Department of Defense, and OMB. Ultimately, we determined that a more clearly defined, coordinated, and comprehensive approach to planning and executing an overall strategy would likely lead to significant progress in furthering strategic goals and lessening persistent weaknesses. Subsequent to our September 2018 report, the President issued the National Cyber Strategy on September 20, 2018. The strategy builds upon Executive Order 13800 and describes actions that federal agencies and the administration are to take to, among other things, secure federal information systems. For example, the strategy states that the administration is expected to further enable DHS to secure federal department and agency networks, to include ensuring that DHS has appropriate access to agency information systems for cybersecurity purposes and can take and direct action to safeguard systems. In addition, the strategy states that the administration plans to continue with its existing efforts underway to transition agencies to shared services and infrastructure and that DHS is to have appropriate visibility into those services and infrastructure to improve cybersecurity posture. DHS’s Network Security Deployment (NSD) division manages cybersecurity programs that are intended to improve the cybersecurity posture of the federal government. Among these programs, NCPS provides a capability to detect and prevent potentially malicious network traffic from entering agencies’ networks. In addition, the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program provides tools to agencies intended to identify and resolve cyber vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis. Operated by DHS’s US-CERT, NCPS is intended to detect and prevent cyber intrusions into agency networks, analyze network data for trends and anomalous data, and share information with agencies on cyber threats and incidents. Deployed in stages, this system, operationally known as EINSTEIN, has provided increasing capabilities to detect and prevent potential cyberattacks involving the network traffic entering or exiting the networks of participating federal agencies. Table 1 provides an overview of the EINSTEIN deployment stages to date. In January 2016, we reported the projected total life-cycle cost of the program was approximately $5.7 billion through fiscal year 2018. In addition, according to the Federal CIO, Congress appropriated $468 million in fiscal year 2017 and $402 million in fiscal year 2018 for NCPS. In that report, we also noted that NCPS was partially, but not fully, meeting most of its stated system objectives. Although the system’s intrusion detection capabilities provided the ability to detect known patterns of malicious activity on agency networks, it was limited in its capabilities to identify potential threats using anomaly-based detection. We also reported that although DHS had developed metrics for measuring the performance of NCPS, the metrics did not gauge the quality, accuracy, or effectiveness of the system’s intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. The department had also identified needs for future capabilities, but had not defined requirements for the capability to detect threats entering and exiting cloud service providers. Further, DHS had not considered specific vulnerability information for agency information systems in making risk- based decisions about future intrusion prevention capabilities. Accordingly, we made nine recommendations to DHS to, among other things, enhance the NCPS capabilities for meeting its objectives and better define requirements for future capabilities. DHS agreed with each of our nine recommendations and indicated that it would take steps to address them. DHS’s CDM program provides federal agencies with tools and services that have the intended capability to automate network monitoring, correlate and analyze security-related information, and enhance risk- based decision making at agency and government-wide levels. These tools include sensors that perform automated scans or searches for known cyber vulnerabilities, the results of which can feed into a dashboard that, at an agency level, is intended to alert network managers and enable the agency to allocate resources based on the risk. Summary data from each participating agency’s dashboard is expected to be transmitted to the Federal Dashboard where the data can be used to inform decisions about cybersecurity risks across the federal government. There are four phases of CDM implementation: Phase 1—involves deploying products to automate hardware and software asset management, configuration settings, and common vulnerability management capabilities. According to the Cybersecurity Strategy and Implementation Plan, DHS purchased phase 1 tools and integration services for all participating agencies in fiscal year 2015. DHS plans to have all phase 1 tools deployed at participating agencies by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2019. Phase 2—intends to address privilege management and infrastructure integrity by allowing agencies to monitor users on their networks and to detect whether users are engaging in unauthorized activity. According to the Cybersecurity Strategy and Implementation Plan, DHS was to provide agencies with additional phase 2 capabilities throughout fiscal year 2016, with the full suite of CDM phase 2 capabilities delivered by the end of that fiscal year. However, according to the OMB FISMA Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2017, the CDM program began deploying Phase 2 tools and sensors during fiscal year 2017. DHS plans to have all phase 2 tools deployed at participating agencies by the end of fiscal year 2019. Phase 3—includes detection capabilities that are intended to assess agency network activity and identify any anomalies that may indicate a cybersecurity compromise. Full operating capability for phases 1, 2, and 3 is planned to be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2022. Phase 4—intends to provide tools to (1) protect data at rest, in transit, and in use; (2) prevent loss of data; and (3) manage and mitigate data breaches. According to CDM program officials, phase 4 has not been approved and no tools have been selected. An approach for protecting systems against cybersecurity compromise is for federal agencies to build successive layers of defense mechanisms at strategic points in their information technology infrastructures. This approach, commonly referred to as defense in depth, entails implementing a series of protective mechanisms so that if one mechanism fails to detect and prevent an attack, another will provide a backup defense. By utilizing defense in depth, federal agencies can reduce the risk of a successful cyberattack by implementing intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. NIST has developed guidelines for protecting agency information systems using intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. For example, NIST SP 800-53 recommends that agencies strategically deploy capabilities and perform monitoring of their systems to include observation of events occurring on their network and at the external boundary of their network. In addition, NIST SP 800-94 provides agencies with guidance in designing, implementing, configuring, securing, monitoring, and maintaining such capabilities. As part of their defense-in-depth approach and, as recommended by the NIST guidelines, agencies can deploy the following list of capabilities, among others, on their networks to detect and prevent an attack: Protecting email from intrusions: According to OMB, email, by way of phishing attacks, remains one of the most common threat vectors across the government. Methods for protecting email include encryption, false email alerts, and anti-spear-phishing training. Monitoring cloud services: Cloud vendors provide services to agencies, including Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. As agencies increasingly rely on cloud services, monitoring traffic to and from their cloud service providers helps to ensure that agencies detect malicious traffic. Using host-based intrusion prevention: Host-based intrusion prevention systems provide defense at an individual system or device level by protecting against malicious activities. Host-based capabilities include memory-based protection and application whitelisting. Monitoring external and internal traffic: Agencies can monitor external and internal traffic, including: encrypted traffic, traffic between workstations and servers on the network, and direct connections to outside entities such as universities. Monitoring traffic helps to ensure that agencies detect malicious activity. Using security information and event management: A security information and event management capability produces real-time alerts and notifications of significant security events. Security alerts and notifications can provide the agency with better situational awareness regarding possible intrusion activity. According to inspectors general, agency CIOs, and OMB reports on federal information security practices, many agencies were not effectively implementing the federal government’s approach and strategy to securing information systems as of fiscal year 2017. Agencies’ inspectors general determined that most of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies did not have effective agency-wide information security programs. They also reported that agencies did not have effective information security controls in place, leading to deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. In addition, the CIOs demonstrated that, during fiscal years 2016 and 2017, most agencies had not met all targets for the cybersecurity CAP goal for improving cybersecurity performance. Further, based on FISMA metrics reported for fiscal year 2017, OMB determined that 13 of the 23 agencies were managing risks to their enterprise, while the other 10 agencies were at risk of ineffectively identifying, protecting, detecting, responding to, and if necessary, recovering from cyber intrusions. Figure 2 summarizes agencies’ efforts to implement the government’s approach and strategy for securing information systems as of fiscal year 2017. Appendix III includes a table that provides an additional overview of the effectiveness of each agency’s implementation of the government’s approach and strategy to securing information systems. Inspectors general determined that more than half of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies did not have effective agency-wide information security programs as of fiscal year 2017. Further, in agency financial statement audit reports for fiscal year 2017, inspectors general reported that, despite improvements being made in information security practices, most of the civilian CFO Act agencies continued to exhibit deficiencies in information security controls. As a result of these deficiencies, inspectors general reported material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. FISMA requires inspectors general to determine the effectiveness of their respective agencies’ information security programs. To do so, FISMA reporting instructions direct inspectors general to provide a maturity rating for agency information security policies, procedures, and practices related to the five core security functions established in the NIST cybersecurity framework, as well as for the agency-wide information security program. The ratings used to evaluate the effectiveness of agencies’ information security programs are based on a five-level maturity model, as described in table 2. According to this maturity model, Level 4 (managed and measurable) represents an effective level of security. Therefore, if an inspector general rates the agency’s information security program at Level 4 or Level 5, then that agency is considered to have an effective information security program. For fiscal year 2017, the inspectors general for 6 of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported that their agencies had an effective agency-wide information security program. More specifically, for the 5 core security functions, most inspectors general reported that their agency was at Level 3 (consistently implemented) for the identify, protect, and recover functions, and at Level 2 (defined) for the detect and respond functions, as shown in figure 3. Inspectors general report on the effectiveness of agencies’ information security controls as part of the annual audits of the agencies’ financial statements. The reports resulting from these audits include a description of information security control deficiencies related to the five major control categories defined by the Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM)—access controls, configuration management, segregation of duties, contingency planning, and security management. The reports also identify the inspectors general’s designation of information security as a significant deficiency or material weakness in internal control over financial reporting systems. For fiscal year 2017, inspectors general continued to identify information security control deficiencies in each of the five major control categories across the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies. The number of agencies with deficiencies in the access control and contingency planning information security control categories decreased between fiscal years 2016 and 2017, according to the inspectors general. Nevertheless, the inspectors general reported that agencies continued to exhibit deficiencies in these two control categories. In addition, the number of agencies with deficiencies in the security management and segregation of duties control categories increased from the prior year. The number of agencies reported as having deficiencies in the configuration management control category remained the same. Figure 4 shows the number of agencies that reported deficiencies in each of the information security control categories for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Overall, inspectors general for the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported progress in agencies’ information security practices for fiscal year 2017. Specifically, during that time, 17 inspectors general designated information security as either a significant deficiency (11) or material weakness (6) in internal control over financial reporting systems for their agencies. This is a decrease from the previous fiscal year when 19 inspectors general designated information security as a significant deficiency (12) or material weakness (7). Reporting instructions contained in the fiscal year 2017 FISMA metrics directed CIOs to assess their agencies’ progress toward achieving outcomes that strengthen federal cybersecurity. To do this, CIOs evaluated their agencies’ performance in reaching targets for specific FISMA reporting metrics. According to the reporting instructions, certain metrics were selected to represent the administration’s cybersecurity CAP goal. These selected metrics allowed CIOs to evaluate their agencies progress in meeting targets for that goal. The cybersecurity CAP goal for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 was to improve cybersecurity performance by having an ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats impacting the operating information environment; ensuring that only authorized users have access to resources and information; and implementing technologies and processes that reduce the risk of malware. The cybersecurity CAP goal consisted of three priority areas with a total of nine performance indicators. Each of the nine performance indicators had an expected level of performance, or target, for implementation. Table 3 shows the three priority areas and related performance indicators and targets of the cybersecurity CAP goal for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. According to agency CIO assessments for fiscal year 2017, 6 of the 23 agencies met all 9 targets for the cybersecurity CAP goal. More specifically, 8 agencies met all four targets for the information security continuous 16 agencies met the two targets for the identity, credential, and access management priority area; and 17 agencies met all three targets for the anti-phishing and malware defense priority area. In addition, CIOs reported that agencies were making progress in meeting the targets for the nine performance indicators for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, with increases in the number of agencies meeting the targets within each of the three priority areas. However, although the number of agencies that met the targets in individual priority areas showed a net increase, not all agencies maintained their status. For example, the CIO for one agency reported meeting all three targets for the anti-phishing and malware defense priority area in fiscal year 2016, but reported that the agency only met two of the three targets in fiscal year 2017. Figure 5 shows the number of agencies that reported meeting each of the targets within the individual cybersecurity CAP goal priority areas for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Although the CIOs for only six agencies reported meeting each of the targets associated with all nine performance indicators for the three cybersecurity CAP goal priority areas, the CIOs at an additional eight agencies reported meeting each target for two of the three priority areas. Specifically, one CIO reported that its agency met each of the targets for the (1) information security continuous monitoring and (2) identity, credential, and access management priority areas; another CIO reported that its agency met each of the targets for the (1) information security continuous monitoring and (2) anti-phishing and malware defense priority areas; and the CIOs at six other agencies met each of the targets for the (1) identity, credential, and access management and (2) anti-phishing and malware defense priority areas. In fiscal year 2018, the President’s Management Agenda replaced the three cybersecurity-focused CAP goal priority areas with updated performance indicators, most of which are to be met by 2020: 1. the manage asset security priority area is similar to the information security continuous monitoring priority area from the previous CAP goal and has a focus on understanding the assets and users on agency networks. In addition to hardware asset and software asset management, this priority area includes performance indicators for authorization and mobile device management. 2. the limit personnel access priority area focuses on issues of access management. This area includes performance indicators for using automated access management and managing access for privileged network and high-impact system users. The privileged network access management performance indicator is a continuation of the identity, credential, and access management priority area of the previous cybersecurity CAP goal. Therefore, agencies are expected to complete this metric by the end of the fiscal year 2018 FISMA reporting year. 3. the protect networks and data priority area, which is similar to the anti-phishing and malware defense priority area from the previous cybersecurity CAP goal, has three new performance indicators: intrusion detection and prevention, exfiltration and enhanced defenses, and data protection. Appendix IV describes the updated cybersecurity-focused CAP priority areas and performance indicators in more detail. In Executive Order 13800, the President directed OMB, in coordination with DHS, to assess and report to the executive branch on the sufficiency and appropriateness of federal agencies’ processes for managing cybersecurity risks. For these risk management assessments, OMB leveraged the FISMA metrics reported by agency CIOs and inspectors general for fiscal year 2017. The metrics addressed domains that correspond with the five core security functions identified in the cybersecurity framework. Table 4 lists these domains and their relationship to the core functions. Based on OMB’s evaluation of these domains, agency risk management processes related to the five core security functions and overall agency enterprise fell into one of the following three rating categories: managing risk: required cybersecurity policies, procedures, and tools are in use and the agency actively manages cybersecurity risks; at risk: some essential policies, processes, and tools are in place to mitigate overall cybersecurity risk, but significant gaps remain; and high risk: key fundamental cybersecurity policies, processes, and tools are either not in place or not deployed sufficiently. For fiscal year 2017, OMB reported that not all agencies were managing risk. When considering each of the five core security functions, OMB reported that most of the 23 agencies were at risk or at high risk with regard to the identify and protect core security functions. Less than half of the 23 agencies were at risk with regard to the detect, respond, and recover core security functions. Overall, OMB determined that 13 agencies were managing risk and that the remaining 10 agencies were at risk of not effectively identifying, protecting, detecting, responding to, and if necessary, recovering from cyber intrusions. Figure 6 shows OMB’s risk management assessment ratings by core security function across the 23 agencies for fiscal year 2017. DHS and OMB, as required by law and policy, have taken various actions to facilitate the agencies’ use of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to secure federal systems. For example, DHS has developed an intrusion assessment plan, deployed NCPS to offer intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to agencies, and is providing tools and services to agencies to monitor their networks through its CDM program. However, NCPS still had limitations in detecting certain types of traffic and agencies were not sending all appropriate traffic through the system. Further, CDM was behind at meeting planned implementation dates, and agencies have requested additional training and guidance for these services. OMB has taken steps to improve upon agencies’ capabilities, but has not completed a policy and strategy to do so, or fully reported on its assessment of agencies’ capabilities. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 requires DHS, in coordination with OMB, to develop and implement an intrusion assessment plan to proactively detect, identify, and remove intruders in agency information systems on a routine basis. The act also requires that the plan be updated, as necessary. In December 2016, DHS documented its Intrusion Assessment Plan. In the plan, DHS outlined tools, platforms, resources, and ongoing work that the department provides, and that are intended to help agencies detect, identify, and remove intruders on their networks and systems. The intrusion assessment plan also outlines a defense-in-depth strategy, which utilizes multiple layers of cybersecurity and deploys multiple capabilities in combination, to secure agencies’ networks and information systems. For example, the plan calls for DHS to implement NCPS to provide a perimeter defense for the networks of federal civilian executive branch agencies, while the agencies are to deploy their own intrusion detection and prevention capabilities inside their networks. DHS submitted its intrusion assessment plan to OMB in January 2017. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 also requires DHS to deploy, operate, and maintain a capability to detect cybersecurity risks and prevent network traffic associated with such risks from transiting to or from an agency information system. In addition, the act requires that DHS make regular improvements to intrusion detection and prevention capabilities by deploying new technologies and modifying existing technologies. Further, the act requires agencies to use this capability on all information traveling between their information systems and any information system other than an agency information system. DHS developed NCPS, operationally known as EINSTEIN, to provide the capabilities to detect and prevent potentially malicious network traffic from entering agency networks. Consistent with recommendations we made to DHS in January 2016, DHS has taken actions to improve these capabilities and has other actions underway. For example, the department determined that enhancing NCPS’s current intrusion detection approach to include functionality that would detect deviations from normal network behavior baselines would be feasible. In addition, according to DHS officials, the department was operationalizing functionality intended to identify malicious activity in network traffic otherwise missed by signature-based methods. determined that developing enhancements to current intrusion detection capabilities to facilitate the scanning of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) traffic would be feasible. According to DHS officials, the department has developed plans to fully support IPv6 for several of its NCPS intrusion detection capabilities. Further, the department has developed implementation schedules and begun roll-out of the enhancements. updated the tool it uses to manage and deploy intrusion detection signatures to include a mechanism to clearly link signatures to publicly available, open-source information. developed clearly defined requirements for detecting threats on agency internal networks and at cloud service providers to help better ensure effective support of information security activities. According to DHS officials, the department was also continuing pilot activities with cloud service providers to enhance protections of agency assets. developed processes and procedures for using vulnerability information, such as data from the CDM program as it becomes available, to help ensure the department is using a risk-based approach for the selection/development of future NCPS intrusion prevention capabilities. Nevertheless, NCPS continues to have known limitations in its ability to identify potential threats. For example: NCPS does not have the ability to effectively detect intrusions across multiple types of traffic. Specifically, DHS determined that developing enhancements to current intrusion detection capabilities to facilitate the scanning of traffic related to supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) control systems would not be feasible. However, according to DHS officials, the department is exploring capabilities that are intended to provide critical, cross-sector, real-time visibility into critical infrastructure companies that utilize SCADA systems. In addition, DHS determined that the scanning of encrypted traffic would not be feasible. Nevertheless, according to its officials, the department performed research on potential architectural, technical, and policy mitigation strategies that could provide both the protection and situational awareness for encrypted traffic. The department has actions under way to continue its research in this area. DHS does not always explicitly ask agencies for feedback or confirmation of receipt of NCPS-related notification. While the department had drafted a standard operating procedure related to its incident notification process, the policy did not instruct DHS analysts specifically to include a solicitation of feedback from agencies within the notification. Further, US-CERT could not provide any information regarding the timetable for when these procedures would take effect. Metrics for NCPS, as provided by DHS, do not provide information about how well the system is enhancing government information security or the quality, efficiency and accuracy of supporting actions. Without the deployment of comprehensive measures, DHS cannot appropriately articulate the value provided by NCPS. While the department had taken actions to develop new measures, these measures did not provide a qualitative or quantitative assessment of the system’s ability to fulfill the system’s objectives. NSD did not provide guidance to agencies on how to securely route their information to their Internet service providers. Without providing network routing guidance, NSD has no assurance that the traffic it sees constitutes all or only a subset of the traffic the customer agencies intend to send. As shown in table 5, as of October 2018, the department had implemented five of the nine recommendations and was in the process of implementing the remainder. However, until DHS completes implementation of the remaining recommendations, the effectiveness of NCPS’s intrusion detection and prevention capabilities may be hindered. In addition, the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies had implemented NCPS capabilities to varying degrees. In a March 2018 report, OMB reported that 21 (about 91 percent) of the 23 agencies had implemented the first two iterations of the NCPS capabilities. In addition, 15 (about 65 percent) of the 23 agencies had implemented all three NCPS capabilities, as shown in table 6 below. However, agencies did not route all network traffic for all information traveling between their information systems and any information system other than an agency information system through NCPS sensors. For example, officials at 13 of 23 agencies stated that not all of their agency external network traffic flowed through NCPS. To illustrate, officials at one agency estimated that 20 percent of their external network traffic did not flow through the system. In addition, 4 of the agencies in our review previously cited several challenges in routing all of their traffic through NCPS intrusion detection sensors, including capacity limitations of the sensors, agreements with external business partners that use direct network connections, interagency network connections that do not route through Internet gateways, use of encrypted communications mechanisms, and backup network circuits that are not used regularly. NSD officials stated that agencies are responsible for routing their traffic to the intrusion detection sensors, and DHS does not have a role in that aspect of NCPS implementation. As a result, potential cyberattacks may not be detected or prevented for a portion of the external traffic at federal agencies. As noted above, we previously recommended that DHS work with agencies to better ensure the complete routing of information to NCPS sensors. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 requires DHS to include, in the efforts of the department to continuously diagnose and mitigate cybersecurity risks, advanced network security tools to improve the visibility of network activity and to detect and mitigate intrusions and anomalous activity. According to DHS officials, the department is addressing the requirement to improve the visibility of network activity by including advanced network security tools as a part of CDM phase 3. In April 2018, we testified that DHS had previously planned to provide 97 percent of federal agencies with the services they needed for CDM phase 3 in fiscal year 2017. In addition, according to OMB’s annual FISMA report for fiscal year 2017, the CDM program was to continue to incorporate additional capabilities, including phase 3, in fiscal year 2018. However, DHS now expects initial operational capabilities to be in place for phase 3 in fiscal year 2019. The department has awarded contracts of approximately $3.26 billion to support its Dynamic and Evolving Federal Enterprise Network Defense (also known as DEFEND) aspect of the CDM program, which is to include phase 3. DEFEND also is to provide coverage for existing agency deployments. According to DHS documentation, the task orders associated with DEFEND are to be issued between the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 and the second quarter of fiscal year 2024. FISMA requires that DHS provide operational and technical assistance to agencies in implementing policies, principles, standards, and guidelines on information security. Toward this end, DHS has available training and guidance related to the implementation of the capabilities of NCPS (i.e., EINSTEIN) and CDM. Specifically: According the DHS officials, the department offers training and guidance to agencies on EINSTEIN 1 implementation. For example, DHS established a program in which the Software Engineering Institute will provide training and mentoring to agencies looking to enhance their understanding of, and proficiency with, the EINSTEIN 1 capability (e.g., network traffic information). NCPS program officials stated that agencies can use this service, which is available at no charge to them, on an unlimited basis as long as the requests relate to EINSTEIN 1. According to the officials, training and guidance related to EINSTEIN 2 and EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated is limited because DHS intentionally restricts the amount of data provided to agencies. According to DHS officials, the department also offers training and guidance to assist agencies with the implementation and use of resources associated with the CDM program, including webinars, guides, and computer-based training. The DEFEND contracts that the department awarded also include a mechanism for agencies to procure specialized tailored training, such as on the use of CDM tools. The department also offers customer advisory forums every other month that agencies are invited to attend. According to CDM program officials, the program’s governance, among other topics, is commonly discussed during these forums. Further, the department provides agencies with guidance, such as various governance documents, best practices, and frequently asked questions, through a web portal that is made available by OMB. In addition, US-CERT offers the CDM training program, which is to provide CDM implementation resources. Nevertheless, most agencies told us that they wanted DHS to provide more training and guidance as it relates to their implementation of the capabilities made available by NCPS and CDM. Specifically, Officials from 16 of 23 agencies reported that they wanted to receive additional training on NCPS capabilities. For example, officials at 5 agencies stated that they would like to receive training related to using network traffic information, understanding alerts, or implementing capabilities for cloud services. The officials also stated that they wanted training specific to agency security personnel. Officials from 19 of 23 agencies stated that they wanted to receive additional guidance related to NCPS’s capabilities, but not all of the 19 provided specific details. For example, officials from at least 3 agencies stated that they wanted additional guidance such as, “how to” documents, descriptions of architecture details, or guidance documents that explain NCPS’s capabilities so that agencies can gauge the gap between the security that the system provides and the security being provided by their own agency’s capabilities. Officials from 21 of 23 agencies reported that they wanted to receive additional training on implementing CDM at their agencies. For example, officials from 7 agencies suggested that additional training on the use of the tools would be beneficial. Officials from 22 of 23 agencies stated that they wanted additional guidance as it relates to CDM implementation. For example, officials from one agency stated that they would like examples of best practices and successful deployments. These requests for additional training and guidance demonstrate that agencies are either unaware of the available training and guidance, or that the training may not meet their needs. Until DHS coordinates with agencies to determine if additional training and guidance are needed, agencies may not be able to fully realize the benefits of the capabilities provided by the NCPS and CDM programs. Although OMB took steps to report on agencies’ implementation of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, it did not report on all required actions. For example, the office did not submit DHS’s intrusion plan to Congress as required by the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015. In addition, OMB provided various reports to Congress that described agencies’ intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, but the reports did not always include all information required by the act. Further, OMB developed a draft policy and strategy that were intended to improve agency capabilities, but it had not finalized these documents. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 requires OMB to submit the intrusion assessment plan developed by DHS to the appropriate congressional committees no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the act. The act also required OMB to submit to Congress a description of the implementation of the intrusion assessment plan and the findings of the intrusion assessments conducted pursuant to the intrusion assessment plan no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the act, and annually thereafter. Although DHS developed and documented an intrusion assessment plan, which described a defense-in-depth approach to security, OMB did not submit the plan to Congress, as called for in the act. Even though DHS submitted the plan to OMB in January 2017, OMB had not submitted it to Congress as of October 2018 (21 months after DHS submitted the plan and 28 months past the due date). On the other hand, OMB did submit its own reports to Congress which generally described elements of the implementation of DHS’s intrusion assessment plan and intrusion assessment findings. In September 2017, OMB issued its analysis of agencies’ implementation of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, or more specifically, agencies’ implementation of the various versions of NCPS. In addition, the office’s annual FISMA report, issued most recently in March 2018, generally covered elements of the intrusion assessment plan. OMB personnel within the Office of the Federal CIO believed that these two reports, along with a process the office had initiated to validate incidents across the government, addressed the requirement for OMB to submit to Congress a description of the implementation of the intrusion assessment plan and the findings of the intrusion assessments conducted pursuant to the plan. However, the September 2017 and March 2018 reports did not address other elements described in DHS’s intrusion assessment plan. For example, OMB did not describe agency roles associated with segmenting their networks, identifying key servers based on threat and impact, ensuring all applications are appropriately tracked and configured, and categorizing and tagging data based on threat and impact. While OMB has provided important information to congressional stakeholders through its own reports, until it submits the plan and addresses all elements described in DHS’s intrusion assessment plan, it will continue to be remiss in providing timely and sufficiently detailed information regarding the intrusion assessment plan to congressional stakeholders to support their oversight responsibilities. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 also required that OMB submit an analysis of agencies’ application of the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to Congress no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the act, and annually thereafter. OMB was to include a list of federal agencies and the degree to which each agency had applied the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities in this analysis. As discussed previously in this report, OMB issued its analysis of agencies’ implementation of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities in September 2017. However, the analysis did not include the degree to which agencies had applied the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. For example, the analysis did not reflect that not all agencies were using this capability on all information traveling between their systems and any system other than an agency system, as required by the act. Until OMB includes the degree to which agencies have applied intrusion detection and prevention capabilities in its analysis, it cannot provide congressional stakeholders with an accurate portrayal of the extent to which the capabilities are detecting and preventing potential intrusions. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 further required that the Federal Chief Information Officer, within OMB, submit a report to Congress no earlier than 18 months after the date of enactment, but no later than 2 years after that date, assessing the intrusion detection and intrusion prevention capabilities that DHS made available to agencies. The act required that the report address (1) the effectiveness of DHS’s system used for detecting, disrupting, and preventing cyber-threat actors, including advanced persistent threats, from accessing agency information and agency information systems; (2) whether the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, continuous diagnostics and mitigation, and other systems deployed are effective in securing federal information systems; (3) the costs and benefits of the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, including as compared to commercial technologies and tools, and including the value of classified cyber threat indicators; and (4) the capability of agencies to protect sensitive cyber threat indicators and defensive measures if they were shared through unclassified mechanisms for use in commercial technologies and tools. In a report issued in September 2018 (about 8 months past the required due date), the Federal Chief Information Officer provided Congress an assessment of intrusion detection and intrusion prevention capabilities across the federal enterprise. The report pointed out, among other things, that agencies did not possess or properly deploy capabilities to detect or prevent intrusions or minimize the impact of intrusions when they occur. In addition, the report acknowledged the need to improve the effectiveness of intrusion detection and intrusion prevention capabilities and stated that OMB would track performance through the CAP goal and annual FISMA reports. However, the report did not address all of the requirements specified in the act. For example, the report did not address whether DHS’s system (i.e., NCPS) was effective in detecting advanced persistent threats. In addition, the report did not include a comparison of the costs and benefits of the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities versus commercial technologies and tools, or the value of classified cyber threat indicators. Further, the report did not address the capability of agencies to protect sensitive cyber threat indicators and defensive measures. Until OMB updates the Federal CIO report to address all of the requirements specified in the act, it will continue to be remiss in providing timely and sufficiently detailed information, such as that related to costs and benefits, among other elements in the act, to congressional stakeholders to support their oversight responsibilities. In addition to OMB’s responsibilities in the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, OMB has initiated plans for further improving agencies’ intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. In response to a tasking in Executive Order 13800, the Director of the American Technology Council coordinated the development of a report to the President from the Secretary of DHS, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration, regarding the modernization of federal information technology (IT). The report, Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization, identified actions that OMB should take for (1) prioritizing the modernization of high-risk, high-value assets and (2) modernizing the Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) program and NCPS to improve protections, remove barriers, and enable commercial cloud migration. For example, OMB was to take the following actions subsequent to the December 13, 2017 report issuance date: Within 60 days: Update a TIC policy to address challenges with agencies’ perimeter-based architectures, such as the modernization of NCPS. In addition, introduce a “90 day sprint” during which approved projects would pilot proposed changes in TIC requirements. Within 90 days: Update the annual FISMA and CAP goal metrics to focus on those critical capabilities that were most commonly lacking among agencies and focus oversight assessments on high-value assets. Within 120 days: In conjunction with DHS, develop a strategy for optimally realigning resources across agencies to reduce the risk to high-value assets and respond to cybersecurity incidents for those assets. OMB has taken steps toward implementing several, but not all, of these actions. For example, it introduced a “90 day sprint” and, according to knowledgeable OMB staff, the outcomes of this action are directly informing changes in TIC requirements. In addition, OMB updated the annual FISMA and CAP goal metrics by including several metrics that focus on high-value assets. The updated FISMA and CAP goal metrics went into effect in April 2018. However, while OMB had taken steps toward updating the TIC policy and developing a strategy for optimally realigning resources, the policy and strategy were in draft and had not yet been finalized as of October 2018. The agency did not specify a time frame for finalizing the policy and strategy. Until OMB finalizes the TIC policy and the strategy for optimally realigning resources, the enhancements offered through the policy and strategy are unlikely to be realized. FISMA requires agencies to provide information security protections to prevent unauthorized access to their systems and information. Officials from the 23 selected agencies reported to us that they generally took steps to meet this requirement by augmenting the tools and services provided by DHS with their own intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. However, agencies did not consistently implement five key capabilities specified by DHS and NIST guidance. In addition, most of the agencies did not fully implement any of the phases of DHS’s CDM program that is intended to improve their capabilities to detect and prevent intrusions. Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 18-01 instructs agencies to enhance email security. These enhancements include enabling encrypted email transmission, ensuring that receiving mail servers know what actions the agency would like taken when an email falsely claims to have originated from the agency, and removing certain insecure protocols, among others. The final deadline for implementing all BOD 18-01 requirements was October 16, 2018. Additionally, NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 recommends that security awareness training include training on how to recognize and prevent spear-phishing attempts. As of September 2018, only 2 of the 23 agencies reported implementing all of the email requirements. For the remaining 21 agencies: 9 agencies stated that their agency had plans to implement all enhancements by the October 2018 deadline, 1 agency was uncertain whether it would meet the deadline, and 11 stated they would not be able to meet the deadline. By contrast, the majority of agencies (22 of 23) reported that they had trained staff on spear-phishing exercises, as recommended by NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4. Officials at the remaining agency told us that the agency planned to have spear-phishing exercises in fiscal year 2019. Such training should help ensure that phishing will be a less effective attack vector against the majority of agencies. While agencies benefit from secure protocols and spear-phishing training, implementing the remaining BOD 18-01 email requirements would provide additional protection to agency information systems. NIST recommends that federal agencies deploy intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. These capabilities include monitoring cloud services, using host-based intrusion prevention systems, monitoring external and internal network traffic, and using a security information and event management (SIEM) system. However, in our semi-structured interviews of the 23 agencies, officials told us that they often had not implemented many of these capabilities. Such inconsistent implementation exposes federal systems and the information they contain to additional risk. As part of their continuing oversight efforts, OMB and DHS can use the information below to work with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting the agencies’ abilities to implement these capabilities. NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 states that agencies should monitor and control communications at the external boundary of the network. However, as of June 2018, fewer than half of the agencies that used cloud computing services were monitoring cloud traffic. Specifically: 10 of 22 agencies that used Infrastructure as a Service were monitoring inbound and outbound Infrastructure as a Service traffic, 7 of 21 agencies that used Platform as a Service were monitoring inbound and outbound Platform as a Service traffic, and 10 of 23 agencies that used Software as a Service were monitoring inbound and outbound Software as a Service traffic. Without monitoring traffic to and from cloud service providers, agencies risk a greater chance of malicious cloud activity detrimentally affecting agency information security. NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 states that agency internal monitoring may be achieved by utilizing intrusion prevention capabilities. These capabilities include using host-based intrusion prevention systems to provide defense at an individual system or device level by protecting against malicious activities. Host-based capabilities include memory-based protection and application whitelisting. As of June 2018, officials at the 23 agencies reported the following to us: 16 agencies used host-based intrusion prevention capabilities, 15 agencies used memory-based protection, and 8 agencies used host-based application whitelisting. Until host-based intrusion protections are fully deployed, agencies will be at greater risk of malicious activity adversely affecting agency operations. NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 also states that agencies should monitor and control communications at the external boundary of the network and at key internal boundaries (e.g., network traffic). NIST guidance also stated that an agency should deploy monitoring devices strategically within the network to detect essential information. However, the agencies in our review did not always monitor external and internal traffic. For example, of the 23 agencies: 5 reported that they were not monitoring inbound or outbound direct connections to outside entities. 11 reported that they were not persistently monitoring inbound encrypted traffic. 8 reported that they were not persistently monitoring outbound encrypted traffic. In addition, 13 agencies reported they were not using a network-based session capture solution. Of the 10 agencies that reported using this solution, officials from 2 agencies stated that they were not capturing workstation-to-workstation connections. Without thorough monitoring of external and internal traffic, agencies will have less assurance that they are aware of compromised or potentially compromised traffic within their network. NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4 states that agencies should establish enhanced monitoring capabilities. Such capabilities should include automated mechanisms that collect and analyze incident data for increased threat and situational awareness. According to NIST, a security information and event management (SIEM) system analyzes data from different sources and identifies and prioritizes significant events. Sources of data used by SIEM systems include logs from database systems, network devices, security systems, web applications, and workstation operating systems. Of the 23 agencies that we reviewed, 21 reported using a SIEM capability. Over half of the agencies employing a SIEM used one or more of their logs to match against known vulnerabilities and advanced persistent threats, as well as to create real-time alerts. For example, of the 21 agencies: 14 agencies reported collecting database logs, but only 7 agencies reported using the logs to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real-time alerts; 20 agencies reported collecting network logs, but only 13 agencies reported using them to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real-time alerts; 21 agencies reported collecting security logs, but only 13 reported using them to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real-time alerts; 15 agencies reported collecting web application logs, but only 9 agencies reported using them to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real-time alerts; and 13 agencies reported collecting workstation logs, but only 8 agencies reported using them to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real-time alerts. Only 5 agencies collected all 5 types of logs and used them to match against known vulnerabilities and persistent threats and to create real- time alerts. By not fully using SIEM capabilities, agencies will have less assurance that relevant personnel will be aware of possible weaknesses or intrusions. To further enhance their intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies were in the process of implementing DHS’s CDM program. As previously discussed, Phase 1 of the program involves deploying products to automate hardware and software asset management, configuration settings, and common vulnerability management capabilities. Phase 2 intends to address privilege management and infrastructure integrity by allowing agencies to monitor users on their networks and to detect whether users are engaging in unauthorized activity. Phase 3 is intended to assess agency network activity and identify any anomalies that may indicate a cybersecurity compromise. As of June 2018, most agencies had not fully implemented any of the three phases. As shown in Figure 7, 15 agencies had partially implemented phase 1, 21 had partially or not yet begun to implement phase 2, and none of the agencies had fully implemented phase 3. Agencies’ implementation status has been affected, at least in part, due to delays in DHS’s deployment of the program phases. As a result, federal systems will remain at risk until the program is fully deployed. Many agencies have not effectively implemented the federal approach and strategy for securing information systems. For example, the inspectors general for 17 of the 23 selected agencies reported that their agencies had not effectively implemented their information security programs and had significant information security deficiencies associated with internal control over financial reporting. In addition, CIOs for 17 agencies reported not meeting all nine targets for the cybersecurity cross- agency priority goal. Further, OMB determined that that only 13 of the 23 agencies were managing risks to their overall enterprise, while the other 10 agencies were at risk. Until agencies more effectively implement the government’s approach and strategy, federal systems will remain at risk. DHS and OMB have initiatives underway that are intended to further improve agencies’ security posture. However, although DHS had provided training and guidance for NCPS and CDM, agencies expressed the need for more. In addition, OMB had also not finalized its policy and strategy aimed at addressing challenges with perimeter security and protecting high value assets, respectively. OMB had also not provided useful information to Congress, such as a description of agencies’ implementation of DHS’s intrusion assessment plan, the degree to which agencies are using NCPS, a complete analysis of agencies’ implementation of DHS’s intrusion assessment plan, or the costs and benefits of using commercial tools. Although agencies’ officials reported various efforts underway to enhance their agency’s intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, implementation efforts across the federal government were not consistent. OMB and DHS can use the information provided in this report to work with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting the agencies’ abilities to implement these capabilities. We are making a total of nine recommendations, including two to DHS and seven to OMB. Specifically: The Secretary of DHS should direct the Network Security Deployment division to coordinate further with federal agencies to identify training and guidance needs for implementing NCPS and CDM. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of DHS should direct the appropriate staff to work with OMB to follow up with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting their abilities to implement intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should submit the intrusion assessment plan to the appropriate congressional committees. (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should report on implementation of the defense- in-depth strategy described in the intrusion assessment plan, including all elements described in the plan. (Recommendation 4) The Director of OMB should update the analysis of agencies’ intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to include the degree to which agencies are using NCPS. (Recommendation 5) The Director of OMB should direct the Federal CIO to update her report to Congress to include required information, such as detecting advanced persistent threats, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the capabilities versus commercial technologies and tools, and the capability of agencies to protect sensitive cyber threat indicators and defense measures. (Recommendation 6) The Director of OMB should establish a time frame for finalizing the Trusted Internet Connections policy intended to address challenges with agencies’ perimeter-based architectures and issue it when finalized. (Recommendation 7) The Director of OMB should establish a time frame for finalizing the strategy for realigning resources across agencies to protect high- value assets and issue it when finalized. (Recommendation 8) The Director of OMB should direct the Federal CIO to work with DHS to follow-up with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting their abilities to implement intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. (Recommendation 9) We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, including DHS, covered by our review. In response, OMB provided comments via email, and DHS and three other agencies (the Department of Commerce, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development) provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendices V through VIII, respectively. The 19 remaining agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, and Small Business Administration) stated via email that they had no comments. In its comments, which the OMB liaison provided to GAO via email on December 7, 2018, OMB did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with the seven recommendations that we made to it. Rather, according to the liaison, OMB agreed with the facts in our draft report, but found that the report did not reflect the agency’s rationale for not submitting the DHS intrusion assessment plan to Congress and a report on the implementation of the plan, as required by the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015. The liaison stated that OMB is working closely with DHS to provide strategic direction in assessing gaps in, and modernizing, the manner in which intrusion detection and prevention capabilities are delivered to the federal government. Further, in a subsequent email on December 10, 2018, OMB said it believes the Federal CIO’s September 2018 report to Congress, along with data provided in OMB’s fiscal year 2017 FISMA report to Congress, achieves the outcomes sought by the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 and demonstrates OMB's continuous engagement with DHS across the evolution of the intrusion detection and prevention program. As stated in our report, we acknowledge that OMB has provided important information to congressional stakeholders through its reports. However, OMB’s reports did not cover all outcomes described in the act. For example, as we pointed out, these reports did not fully address implementation of the defense-in-depth strategy described in DHS’s intrusion assessment plan. In addition, although OMB reported on several elements required by the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, it did not report on all of the required elements. For example, the reports did not address whether DHS’s NCPS was effective in detecting advanced persistent threats. The reports also did not include a comparison of the costs and benefits of the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities versus commercial technologies and tools, or the value of classified cyber threat indicators. Further, the reports did not address the capability of agencies to protect sensitive cyber threat indicators and defensive measures. Accordingly, we maintain that our recommendations for OMB to report on required elements in the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 are warranted. In addition, OMB suggested that we revise our recommendations to the agency to include a shared responsibility with DHS to help drive desired outcomes. However, six of the seven recommendations we are making to OMB are related to specific OMB responsibilities cited in either the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 or the Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization. As such, we believe the recommendations are appropriately addressed to OMB. Furthermore, our recommendations do not prevent OMB from working with DHS to implement them. Our seventh recommendation to OMB—to work with DHS to follow up with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting their abilities to implement intrusion detection and prevention capabilities—includes a shared responsibility with DHS. OMB also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. Subsequent to providing initial comments on our draft report, OMB issued a memorandum intended to provide a strategy for realigning resources across agencies to protect high-value assets. This action addresses our recommendation 8, which called for the Director of OMB to establish a time frame for finalizing the strategy for realigning resources across agencies to protect high-value assets, and to issue the strategy when finalized. In its comments, DHS stated that it concurred with the two recommendations we made to the department. DHS stated that it expects to implement the recommendations in 2019. The Department of Commerce commented that the report was reasonable and that the department agreed with the findings and recommendations. In its comments, the Social Security Administration stated that protecting its networks and information is a critical priority. According to the agency, it continued to make improvements in fiscal year 2018, such as improvements and progress in securing applications, leveraging the cloud, managing its assets and vulnerabilities, strengthening its network and incident response capabilities, improving its security training, and enhancing the overall effectiveness of its cybersecurity program. Finally, the U.S. Agency for International Development commented that its inspector general had improved the agency’s capability maturity ratings for core security functions in fiscal year 2018. The agency also pointed out that it was the only selected agency in which fiscal year 2017 indicators of effectiveness in implementing the federal approach and strategy for securing information systems were all positive (as noted in Appendix III). We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the Director of OMB, the heads of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies and their inspectors general, and other interested congressional parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, which was enacted December 18, 2015, included a provision for GAO to report on the effectiveness of the federal government’s approach and strategy for securing agency information systems, including intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. The objectives of our review were to assess: (1) the reported effectiveness of selected agencies’ implementation of the federal government’s approach and strategy to securing agency information systems; (2) the extent to which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have facilitated the use of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to secure federal agency information systems; and (3) the extent to which selected agencies reported implementing intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. Selected agencies for our review were the 23 civilian agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act). We did not include the Department of Defense because the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 only pertains to civilian agencies. Because we focused our work on the 23 civilian agencies, results from these reviews are not generalizable to the entire federal government. To assess the reported effectiveness of agencies’ implementation of the federal government’s approach and strategy to securing agency information systems, we described the federal government’s approach and strategy by summarizing the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), Executive Order 13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (cybersecurity framework). assessed the reported effectiveness of agencies’ implementation of the approach and strategy by reviewing annual reports from OMB and the inspectors general (IG) of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies regarding the reported implementation of FISMA for fiscal year 2017. We described the IG reported maturity levels, including the Office of Inspectors General FISMA Reporting Metrics definition of “effectiveness.” These maturity levels are based on security domains aligned with the five core functions in NIST’s cybersecurity framework. We also summarized IG reported conclusions on the effectiveness of agencies’ information security programs for fiscal year 2017. reviewed the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 financial statement audit reports for each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies to identify the extent to which any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses related to information security over financial systems had been reported and to identify information security control weaknesses reported by the IGs. identified whether agencies had met the targets for the cybersecurity- focused cross-agency priority goal for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 by examining agency-reported performance metrics for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. evaluated OMB’s agency risk management assessment ratings to make a determination on how agencies were managing risk to their enterprise. These conclusions were based on FISMA metrics, and are aligned with the five core security functions defined in the cybersecurity framework. interviewed knowledgeable OMB officials and staff to obtain their views on the reported effectiveness of the federal government’s approach and strategy to securing agency information systems. To assess the extent to which OMB and DHS have facilitated the use of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to secure federal agency information systems, we determined the extent OMB and DHS fulfilled their requirements described in the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 by collecting and reviewing artifacts from OMB and DHS and comparing them to the provisions outlined in the act. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials from OMB and DHS regarding their efforts to fulfill their requirements described in the act. determined the effectiveness of corrective actions taken by DHS to address nine previously reported recommendations we made in our report related to NCPS. Specifically, we collected appropriate artifacts and assessed the artifacts against the criteria used in that report, and determined the extent to which the actions taken by DHS met the intent of the recommendations, and we met with DHS staff responsible for the remediation activities and obtained their views of the status of actions taken to address the recommendations. held semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable officials from the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies. During these interviews, we obtained the agency’s views on whether they need more training and guidance from DHS for NCPS and CDM. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials and staff at DHS to obtain their views on how DHS had improved the intrusion detection and prevention capabilities it provides to federal agencies. We also interviewed DHS officials to obtain their views on the training and guidance that the department makes available to agencies. To assess the extent to which selected agencies reported implementing intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, we described the reported intrusion detection and prevention capabilities implemented by the 23 civilian CFO Act civilian agencies by summarizing implemented intrusion detection and prevention capability information obtained from the semi-structured interviews at the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies described above; identifying the extent to which the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies were in compliance with DHS’s binding operating directive (BOD) pertaining to enhanced email and web security (BOD 18-01) by collecting and summarizing Cyber Hygiene Trustworthy Email reports from the 23 agencies and determining the extent to which the agencies had taken required actions to implement the BOD. During the semi-structured interviews, we also obtained the agency’s views and experiences with other programs and services provided by DHS, including the extent to which agencies had implemented the tools offered by the department’s Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. To determine the reliability of submitted data and obtain clarification about agencies’ processes to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data used in their respective FISMA reports, we analyzed documents and conducted interviews with officials from 6 of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies. To select these six agencies, we sorted agency fiscal year 2017 information technology budget data from highest to lowest amount and then divided the data into three tiers: high spending, medium spending, and low spending. We then randomly selected two agencies from each of the three tiers. The selected agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. While not generalizable to all agencies, the information we collected and analyzed about the six selected agencies provided insights into various processes in place to produce FISMA reports. Based on this assessment, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We conducted this performance audit from December 2017 to December 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The National Institute of Standards and Technology established the cybersecurity framework to provide guidance for cybersecurity activities within the private sector and government agencies at all levels. The cybersecurity framework consists of five core functions: identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover. Within the five functions are 23 categories and 108 subcategories that define discrete outcomes for each function, as described in table 7. The federal approach and strategy for securing information systems is prescribed by federal law and policy, including the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and the presidential executive order on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure. Accordingly, federal reports describing agency implementation of this law and policy, and reports of related agency information security activities, indicated the effectiveness of agencies’ efforts to implement the federal approach and strategy. Table 8 summarizes the reported effectiveness of the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 agencies to implement the government’s approach and strategy to securing information systems. The President’s Management Agenda identifies cross-agency priority (CAP) goals to target areas where multiple agencies must collaborate to effect change. The agenda issued in fiscal year 2018 established an information technology modernization goal that includes a cybersecurity objective with specific priority areas and performance indicators. This cybersecurity-focused goal is intended to drive progress in the government’s efforts to modernize information technology to increase productivity and security. Figure 8 describes the 3 updated cybersecurity- focused cross-agency priority areas and 10 performance indicators. Each federal agency is expected to meet one of the 10 new performance indicators by the end of fiscal year 2018 and the remainder by 2020. In addition to the individual named above, Jeffrey Knott (assistant director), Daniel Swartz (analyst-in-charge), David Blanding, Chris Businsky, Kristi Dorsey, Di’Mond Spencer, Priscilla Smith, and Edward Varty made key contributions to this report. West Coile, Franklin Jackson, and Chris Warweg also provided assistance.", "answers": ["Federal agencies are dependent on information systems to carry out operations. The risks to these systems are increasing as security threats evolve and become more sophisticated. To reduce the risk of a successful cyberattack, agencies can deploy intrusion detection and prevention capabilities on their networks and systems. GAO first designated federal information security as a government-wide high-risk area in 1997. In 2015, GAO expanded this area to include protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information. Most recently, in September 2018, GAO updated the area to identify 10 critical actions that the federal government and other entities need to take to address major cybersecurity challenges. The federal approach and strategy for securing information systems is grounded in the provisions of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and Executive Order 13800. The act requires agencies to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to secure their information systems. The Executive Order, issued in May 2017, directs agencies to use the National Institute of Standards and Technology's cybersecurity framework to manage cybersecurity risks. The Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 contained a provision for GAO to report on the effectiveness of the government's approach and strategy for securing its systems. GAO determined (1) the reported effectiveness of agencies' implementation of the government's approach and strategy; (2) the extent to which DHS and OMB have taken steps to facilitate the use of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to secure federal systems; and (3) the extent to which agencies reported implementing capabilities to detect and prevent intrusions. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed OMB reports related to agencies' information security practices including OMB's annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2017. GAO also analyzed and summarized agency-reported security performance metrics and IG-reported information for the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies. In addition, GAO evaluated plans, reports, and other documents related to DHS intrusion detection and prevention programs, and interviewed OMB, DHS, and agency officials. The 23 civilian agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) have often not effectively implemented the federal government's approach and strategy for securing information systems (see figure below). Until agencies more effectively implement the government's approach and strategy, federal systems will remain at risk. To illustrate: As required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB), inspectors general (IGs) evaluated the maturity of their agencies' information security programs using performance measures associated with the five core security functions—identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover. The IGs at 17 of the 23 agencies reported that their agencies' programs were not effectively implemented. IGs also evaluated information security controls as part of the annual audit of their agencies' financial statements, identifying material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls for financial reporting at 17 of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies. Chief information officers (CIOs) for 17 of the 23 agencies reported not meeting all elements of the government's cybersecurity cross-agency priority goal. The goal was intended to improve cybersecurity performance through, among other things, maintaining ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats; and implementing technologies and processes that reduce malware risk. Executive Order 13800 directed OMB, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to assess and report on the sufficiency and appropriateness of federal agencies' processes for managing cybersecurity risks. Using performance measures for each of the five core security functions, OMB determined that 13 of the 23 agencies were managing overall enterprise risks, while the other 10 agencies were at risk. In assessing agency risk by core security function, OMB identified a few agencies to be at high risk (see figure at the top of next page). DHS and OMB facilitated the use of intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to secure federal agency systems, but further efforts remain. For example, in response to prior GAO recommendations, DHS had improved the capabilities of the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS), which is intended to detect and prevent malicious traffic from entering agencies' computer networks. However, the system still had limitations, such as not having the capability to scan encrypted traffic. The department was also in the process of enhancing the capabilities of federal agencies to automate network monitoring for malicious activity through its Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program. However, the program was running behind schedule and officials at most agencies indicated the need for additional training and guidance. Further, the Federal CIO issued a mandated report assessing agencies' intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, but the report did not address required information, such as the capability of NCPS to detect advanced persistent threats, and a cost/benefit comparison of capabilities to commercial technologies and tools. Selected agencies had not consistently implemented capabilities to detect and prevent intrusions into their computer networks. Specifically, the agencies told GAO that they had not fully implemented required actions for protecting email, cloud services, host-based systems, and network traffic from malicious activity. For example, 21 of 23 agencies had not, as of September 2018, sufficiently enhanced email protection through implementation of DHS' directive on enhanced email security. In addition, less than half of the agencies that use cloud services reported monitoring these services. Further, most of the selected 23 agencies had not fully implemented the tools and services available through the first two phases of DHS's CDM program. Until agencies more thoroughly implement capabilities to detect and prevent intrusions, federal systems and the information they process will be vulnerable to malicious threats. GAO is making two recommendations to DHS, to among other things, coordinate with agencies to identify additional needs for training and guidance. GAO is also making seven recommendations to OMB to, among other things, direct the Federal CIO to update the mandated report with required information, such as detecting advanced persistent threats. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations. OMB did not indicate whether it concurred with the recommendations or not."], "length": 12551, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "a6d311b6722cdf0fd1e95f07371162c59183a53db1fc5f62"}
{"input": "", "context": "Many Members of Congress became actively engaged in foreign policy debates over U.S. intervention in the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter, \"Bosnia\"). Congress monitored and at times challenged the Bush and Clinton Administrations' response to the conflict through numerous hearings, resolutions, and legislative initiatives. Many observers contend that the United States is a stakeholder in Bosnia's future because of the strong impact of U.S. intervention on the postwar Bosnian state. Nearly 25 years after warring parties in Bosnia reached the Dayton Agreement (see below), Bosnia faces numerous internal and external challenges, and the country retains geopolitical importance to U.S. interests in the Western Balkans. As Congress assesses ongoing and emerging security issues in the region, including resilience against malign external influence, renewed conflict, and radicalization, Bosnia's internal politics and its role in Balkan stability may merit further examination. Bosnia has existed in various forms throughout its history: a medieval kingdom, territory held by two major empires, a federal unit, and, since 1992, an independent state. Bosnia's present international borders are largely consistent with its administrative boundaries under later periods of Ottoman Turkish rule. After World War I, Bosnia became part of the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. It was one of the six constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1945 until 1992. Bosnia's constitution stems from the U.S.-brokered Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the country's 1992-1995 war. It recognizes three \"constituent peoples\": Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. All three groups are Slavic. Religious tradition is considered a marker of difference among the three ethnic identities: Bosniaks are predominantly Muslim, Serbs are largely Orthodox Christian, and Croats are mostly Catholic. Although Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are recognized in Bosnia as distinct official languages, they are mutually intelligible. Bosniaks comprise approximately 50.1% of the population, Bosnian Serbs 30.8%, and Bosnian Croats 15.4%. In this report, Bosnian is used as a non-ethnic term for a person or institution from Bosnia. A Bosnian Serb is an ethnic Serb from Bosnia and a Bosnian Croat is an ethnic Croat from Bosnia. Bosniak refers to Slavic Muslims. Bosnia's religious and cultural diversity is one of its distinctive characteristics. Islam was introduced to part of Bosnia's population during the Ottoman period, although there were also large Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Jewish communities. Bosnia was the most heterogeneous Yugoslav republic and the only one where no ethnic group formed an absolute majority. During the 1990s, some popular accounts of Bosnia (and the former Yugoslavia) depicted its ethnic relations as \"ancient hatreds,\" implying that the country's ethnic groups cannot peacefully coexist and that the 1992-1995 war was unavoidable. However, many experts on the region reject this thesis. Although Bosnia has experienced episodes of communal violence and bloodshed, most recently during World War II and the 1992-1995 war, its heterogeneous population also has lived in mixed communities for periods of peace. Many experts contend that ethnic conflict often was stoked by domestic leaders who manipulated historical memory and grievances to further their own agendas, or by external powers seeking to rule Bosnia or annex its territory. In the 1980s, Yugoslavia's escalating political and economic crises fueled nationalist movements. Nationalist leaders in Serbia and Croatia appealed to Bosnian Serbs and Croats as ethnic \"kin.\" The party that ruled Croatia for most of the 1990s, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), established a sister party with the same name to mobilize Bosnian Croats and compete in Bosnia's elections. This gave Croatia an avenue of influence in Bosnian politics. Serbia, led by strongman Slobodan Milošević, likewise had influence over Bosnian Serb leaders. In Bosnia's November 1990 elections—the first competitive elections in decades—voters cast aside the ruling League of Communists party and elected ethnic parties that largely continue to dominate today. Bosnian voters backed independence in a 1992 referendum, following in the footsteps of Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia. Bosnian Serbs, who did not want to separate from Yugoslavia, boycotted the referendum. Bosnian Serb forces seized more than two-thirds of Bosnia's territory, and a three-year conflict followed that pitted Serb, Croat, and Bosniak forces against one another. Bosnian Serb leaders declared a \"Serb Republic\" ( Republika Srpska) in March 1992, while Bosnian Croat leaders proclaimed the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosnia in July. Some Bosnian Croat and Bosnian Serb leaders advocated unification with Croatia and Serbia, respectively, where government factions—including their strongman leaders—likewise wanted to carve a Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia out of Bosnia's territory. Bosniak leaders opposed dismemberment of the state. Bosnia's war was one of the most lethal conflicts in Europe since World War II. Bosnian Serb forces besieged Sarajevo for 44 months. More than 10,000 people, mostly civilians, died due to shelling, sniping, and blockade-related deprivation. Paramilitary factions from neighboring Croatia and Serbia—some of which reportedly had ties to the Croatian and Serbian government—fought alongside Bosnian Croats and Serbs. The Serb-dominated Yugoslav National Army also aided Bosnian Serb forces, giving them a military advantage. In many areas, combatants from the three groups killed or expelled members of other ethnic groups to \"purify\" territory that they wanted to claim as their own. This \"ethnic cleansing\" changed Bosnia's demographic landscape. An estimated 100,000 or more Bosnians were killed in the conflict, and roughly half of its population displaced. In addition, an estimated 20,000 or more women and girls were victims of sexual violence. Hundreds of Bosnians have been prosecuted for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and in Bosnian courts. In 2016, the ICTY convicted wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić of genocide and war crimes. In 2019, the tribunal rejected his appeal and increased his sentence from 40 years to life. Citizens of Croatia and Serbia have also been indicted for crimes committed in the Bosnian war. Highly publicized incidents in 1994 and 1995 underscored the war's human toll. Bosnian Serb forces bombarded a Sarajevo market in 1994 and 1995, resulting in over 100 civilian deaths. In July 1995, Serb forces commanded by Ratko Mladić seized and executed more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in a U.N.-designated safe area around the city of Srebrenica, an incident subsequently seen by some as a consequence of the international community's muddled, ineffectual response to the conflict. The International Court of Justice and ICTY subsequently ruled that the Srebrenica massacres constituted an act of genocide. Mladić was convicted of genocide and other crimes in 2017. These incidents increased pressure on U.S. policymakers to take a stronger role in resolving a conflict that had largely been left to the EU and the United Nations. Under U.S. command, NATO intervened in August and September 1995 with air strikes against Bosnian Serb targets, while allied Bosniak and Croat forces launched a simultaneous offensive in western Bosnia. The United States played a key role in brokering several agreements. The 1994 Washington Agreement ended the \"war within a war\" between Bosniaks and Croats. In November 1995, leaders from Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia met at the Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, OH, to negotiate a peace agreement. U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke played a crucial role in brokering the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more commonly known as the Dayton Peace Agreement. Bosnia's complex political system is a product of the Dayton Agreement; one of its annexes serves as Bosnia's constitution (Annex 4). Its provisions partly reflect the situation on the ground in 1995, including the subdivision of Bosnia into two ethnoterritorial entities ( Figure 1 ): Republika Srpska (\"RS\"), which Bosnian Serb leaders had proclaimed in 1992, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (\"FBiH,\" predominantly populated by Bosniaks and Croats), which was created by the 1994 Washington Agreement. Entity borders were largely drawn to form ethnic majorities, even though they also reflected territorial seizure and ethnic cleansing. Many Bosniaks view the division of Bosnia into these roughly equal entities as awarding the spoils of war to Bosnian Serbs, whom they regard as the aggressors. Many Bosnian Serbs, however, view the Serb-majority entity as a protection against marginalization. The designation of Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs as Bosnia's three \"constituent peoples\" is a cornerstone of the Dayton system. Numerous government bodies have ethnic quotas requiring equal representation of the three groups. In these power-sharing institutions, delegates from each constituent group may veto measures that go against vital ethnic interests. While these arrangements make Bosnia's political system prone to gridlock, Dayton's negotiators viewed them as necessary to prevent any group from feeling marginalized in a context of low trust. Bosnia is a parliamentary republic with a high degree of decentralization. Its complex, tiered structure includes a central (\"state-level\") government, the two entities, the autonomous Brčko district, and cantonal and municipal governments. The central (\"state-level\") government covers the entirety of Bosnia. A three-member presidency is the head of state, and includes one Serb member who is elected by RS voters, and one Bosniak and one Croat member elected by FBiH voters. The Council of Ministers, led by a Chairperson, is roughly equivalent to a cabinet government and prime minister in other parliamentary systems. The Parliamentary Assembly is a state-level legislature with two chambers: a directly elected House of Representatives (42 members) and an indirectly elected House of Peoples (5 Serbs, 5 Croats, and 5 Bosniaks). The state-level government is considered to be weak, despite some expansion of its functions in the 2000s. Its major responsibilities include foreign relations; trade, customs, and monetary policy; migration and asylum policy; defense; and intelligence. Bosnia is further subdivided into two ethnoterritorial entities: Republika Srpska (RS), where Serbs are the largest ethnic group (82%), and the Federation entity (FBiH), where Bosniaks (70%) and Croats (22%) are the largest groups. The two entities have broader policy jurisdiction than the state-level government. Governing functions that are not assigned to the state-level government fall to the entities. These include civilian policing, economic policy, fiscal policy, energy policy, and health and social policy, as well as other issues. Each entity has its own constitution, as well as a president, vice presidents, legislature, and cabinet government with a prime minister. Each entity may establish \"special parallel relationships\" with neighboring states (i.e., Croatia and Serbia). Numerous entity bodies also incorporate ethnic quotas. Brčko district, a border region in northeastern Bosnia, was initially administered by the international community to allay concerns about RS secession. Brčko's location interrupts RS's contiguity, and both entities initially claimed it. Brčko was later awarded to both entities, but remains a self-governing district whose population is a mix of all three constituent peoples. Some analysts believe it has been relatively more successful than the entities in passing reforms and reintegrating its divided population (e.g., ethnically mixed schools with a common curriculum). FBiH entity is further divided into ten cantons, many of which were drawn to form ethnic Bosniak or Croat majorities. The cantons have jurisdiction in many policy areas, including policing, housing, culture, and education. They also have their own constitutions—based on the FBiH constitution—as well as legislatures and cabinet-style governments. FBiH and RS are further divided into 79 and 64 municipalities, respectively. The Dayton Agreement established a strong oversight role for the international community. The Office of the High Representative (OHR) was created to monitor the implementation of civilian aspects of Dayton. The High Representative is supported by the Peace Implementation Council (PIC), a group of 55 countries and agencies. A 1997 PIC conference empowered the High Representative to impose binding decisions and sanction politicians who obstruct Dayton. Until the mid-2000s, the High Representative used these powers to remove officials deemed to be obstructive to peace and to promote what are considered among the most constructive reforms since Dayton, including merging the entities' armed forces and intelligence services and putting them under new state-level ministries. However, the High Representative's proactive role has since decreased. This is partly due to criticism that the OHR lacks democratic legitimacy and accountability. Bosnian Serb politicians have claimed that the OHR's interventions support Bosniak leaders' preference for a more centralized state. At the same time, some U.S. and EU policymakers believed that the attraction of EU membership could incentivize reforms in place of the OHR's more top-down approach. The international community also plays an ongoing security role. NATO led the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the smaller Stabilization Force (SFOR) that monitored security aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement. The initial deployment of NATO ground forces to Bosnia numbered nearly 60,000, of which the largest share (approximately one-third) was from the United States. The number of troops subsequently decreased. In 2004, NATO's peacekeeping role was transferred to the EU with the understanding that NATO would assist if necessary. The size of the EU operation (EUFOR Althea) decreased from 7,000 troops in 2004 to roughly 600 troops today. Many analysts contend that the Dayton Agreement helped hold Bosnia together after the war; they point to the absence of widespread violence since 1995 as an indicator of its success. However, observers also question whether Bosnia can function much longer under the Dayton system. They identify several key challenges: Critics claim that Bosnia's political system reinforces the country's ethnic divisions and makes ethnicity a core basis of political identity. The ethnic parties that have dominated politics since the war generally appeal to voters from their respective ethnic communities rather than all Bosnians. Critics accuse ethnic party leaders of inflaming nationalist tensions and manipulating historical memory to distract from corruption and win elections, thus aggravating rather than bridging the deep wounds that remain from the war. In some parts of Bosnia, divisions are further reproduced at the societal level through institutions like segregated schools, which separate schoolchildren from different ethnic groups and teach them different curriculum. Some analysts also contend that the system is too gridlock-prone to pass major political and economic reforms to be passed, even with the incentive of potential EU membership. Bosnia's fractured, overlapping institutions sometimes muddle policymaking jurisdiction and impede coordinated response. Furthermore, power-sharing arrangements create numerous veto points in the legislative process. Government coalitions are typically ideologically broad and unwieldy, creating a further source of potential dysfunction. One of the consequences of these barriers is that it is difficult to pass legislation. The previous state-level Parliament, for example, adopted twelve new laws over the course of its 2014-2018 term. Corruption in Bosnia has roots in the country's wartime economy. A 2000 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that \"organized crime and corruption pervade Bosnia's national political parties, civil service, law enforcement and judicial systems. [Ethnic] parties control all aspects of the government, the judiciary, and the economy, and in so doing maintain the personal and financial power of their members.\" Many observers claim that the situation has improved little since then. In 2018, the High Representative warned that the rule of law has deteriorated, while the U.S. State Department describes the rule of law as \"an existential issue.\" Bosnia's major parties allegedly siphon from the state apparatus and public enterprises in their strongholds to amass wealth and power. Furthermore, parties in power reportedly politicize hiring in Bosnia's public sector, which employs an estimated third or more of the working population. For many Bosnians, satisfactory employment depends on having the right political connections, which creates a dependence that reportedly is exploited during elections. In 2018, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Bosnia decried the \"[Bosnian] politicians who seek to destabilize the country in order to remain in power at all costs for personal profit and protection.\" Many analysts believe that Bosnia's entrenched ethnic parties benefit tremendously from the status quo and have little incentive to reform the system. Bosnia's MPs are among the best-paid in Europe relative to local incomes, commanding six to eight times the average Bosnian salary. Parties and politicians who gain office in the government or administration often find \"a remarkably efficient path to personal enrichment.\" Politicians are skilled at using veto points to block legislation that threatens their position in Bosnia's patronage system. According to one analyst, Bosnia's patronage system is \"the raison d'etre of the political elites and is the main cause of the state's dysfunctionality and resistance to reform.\" Bosnia's entrenched political class may also fear penalty if serious reforms are enacted and shine the spotlight on malfeasance. Criminal indictments against leaders in neighborhood countries like Romania, Croatia, and North Macedonia highlight this risk. Analysts believe these disincentives make entrenched politicians resistant to external pressure for reform. Several major rounds of U.S.- and EU-brokered constitutional reform efforts, including in 2006, 2008, and 2009, ultimately failed. Germany and the United Kingdom launched a major initiative in 2014 to shift the focus from difficult constitutional reforms to seemingly more feasible socioeconomic reforms that they hoped would improve Bosnia's economy and dismantle patronage networks. The 2015 \"Reform Agenda\" identified economic, administrative, and legal measures to be adopted by entity- and state-level governments. The process, which required the major parties to commit in writing to the reform framework, was supported by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group, and the United States. As an incentive for politicians to agree to the Agenda, the EU offered the entry into force of Bosnia's long-stalled Stabilization and Association Agreement, which marked the first step toward EU membership. However, most observers view the Reform Agenda as largely unsuccessful; many of its provisions failed when entrenched parties objected to measures that would undercut their dominance. While many officials recognize that Bosnia's political system needs reform, there is little consensus on how to change it or to generate the political will to find common ground so long as the dominant parties remain entrenched. Bosnian Serb leaders have expressed a desire to return to the \"original\" Dayton system, when the entities had greater competencies in security and justice. Milorad Dodik, who has dominated politics in Republika Srpska since the 2000s, has gone further by repeatedly threatening RS secession. Bosnian Croat leaders from the largest Croat party, the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia (HDZ-BiH), call for more autonomy for Croats, and have raised the prospect of splitting FBiH to create a third Croat-majority entity. By contrast, Bosniak leaders generally prefer more centralization and the removal of some of the institutional arrangements that they believe contribute to dysfunction and gridlock. Some Bosniak officials also have proposed dismantling the entities or eliminating FBiH's cantons. Survey research documents Bosnian citizens' anger toward the political class and their distrust of political institutions. In a 2018 International Republican Institute survey, 86% of respondents expressed belief that Bosnia is heading in the wrong direction. An estimated 170,000 individuals—disproportionately young and skilled—have emigrated since 2013. Dissatisfaction with education and healthcare, insecurity, and nepotism are cited as key motives to emigrate. Nevertheless, some analysts believe that periods of social discontent in 2014 and 2018, which challenged the system but appeared to transcend ethnic divides, suggest that strengthening Bosnian civil society could increase pressure for reform, and perhaps cultivate a new generation of party leaders. Other observers have put their hopes for reform in Bosnia's so-called \"civic parties,\" which do not have nationalist platforms and typically mobilize voters on the basis of socioeconomic interests rather than ethnicity. While these parties have not matched the results of the ethnic parties, their electoral performance has improved in recent years. Bosnia's challenges came to the forefront during its most recent general election on October 7, 2018 (see Table 1 ). The Central Election Commission (CEC) registered 60 parties and over 3,500 candidates for state-level, entity, and cantonal offices. Observers noted that the campaign climate was more divisive and nationalist in tone than usual. Despite broad voter dissatisfaction, entrenched ethnic parties won the largest vote shares. Almost six months after the election, the parties are still negotiating over government formation at the state level and in FBiH; however, it appears that entrenched ethnic parties will continue to dominate. In March 2019, the leaders of the largest Bosniak, Croat, and Serb parties stated that they had agreed to a set of principles to guide forming the state-level government (the Council of Ministers). Some observers viewed the improved result of civic parties (one-third of the vote in FBiH) as a positive development. Some of the most controversial outcomes concern the elections to the state-level presidency, composed of three members (one Bosniak, one Croat, and one Serb). In a closely fought race, Šefik Džaferović, candidate of the ethnic Bosniak SDA party, narrowly defeated the candidate of the civic SDP party (36.6% and 33.5%, respectively), retaining the lock that the SDA has had on the Bosniak seat in most elections since 1996, but perhaps auguring a future victory by a civic party candidate. Prior to the election, some analysts expressed concern at the prospect of two of the three seats on the presidency being held by the nationalist Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik and his ally, the nationalist Bosnian Croat politician Dragan Čović. Both politicians have explicitly or implicitly challenged the legitimacy of Bosnian statehood and called for greater ethnoterritorial autonomy. However, to the surprise of some observers, Željko Komšić of the civic Democratic Front defeated incumbent Čović for the Croat seat with 53% of the vote. Komšić was previously elected as the Croat member of the presidency in 2006 and 2010, and is considered to be a moderate political figure who generally supports centralizing reforms. In contrast to HDZ-BiH leader Čović, he does not have strong ties to the Croatian government. Komšić's election as the Croat member of the presidency in 2006 and 2010 was mired in controversy amid complaints that he only won with the support of Bosniaks who voted in the election for the Croat member on the presidency rather than the Bosniak member. Komšić identifies as Croat but has been leader of several civic parties. He comes from central Bosnia, and not from the Croat-majority western regions that are the stronghold of the HDZ. Although it is not illegal for Bosniaks to vote for the Croat seat on the presidency rather than the Bosniak seat, some Croat leaders (especially HDZ-BiH and HDZ-1990) claim that it violates the spirit of Dayton and results in illegitimate representation of Croats. Similar accusations of ethnic cross-voting surfaced after Komšić's victory in 2018. Some analysts expect Komšić's victory to harden the HDZ-BiH position on electoral reform (see \"Legal Challenges,\" above) and possibly embolden politicians who seek a separate entity. As most pre-election polls anticipated, RS strongman Milorad Dodik defeated the more moderate incumbent Serb member of the presidency with 54% of the vote. Dodik has dominated entity politics in RS since the mid-2000s as entity prime minister and president. Analysts note that RS's political environment grew more closed as Dodik consolidated power. Dodik has run afoul of the United States and the EU by frequently threatening to hold a referendum on RS secession, questioning the legitimacy of Bosnian statehood, and cultivating close ties to Russia (see below). The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned him in 2017 for actively obstructing Dayton. Many analysts have expressed concern that Dodik will use his new position to obstruct the workings of the central government while continuing to dictate politics in RS through loyal allies. Shortly after the election he vowed to \"work above all and only for the interests of Serbs.\" One of his first acts as head of state was to call for Bosnia to recognize Ukraine's Crimea region as Russian territory. In December 2018, the National Assembly of RS approved the creation of several new ministries, an act that some view as an attempt to wrest competencies from the state-level government. In early 2019, the RS parliament courted controversy when it passed legislation to create a new commission to reinvestigate the events of Srebrenica, which many view as an attempt to deny or downplay the massacres. Since the election, the formation of governments has proceeded piecemeal, and legal challenges to election law in FBiH (see above, \"Legal Challenges\") initially cast doubt over the formation of that entity's government. The RS National Assembly approved the new entity government in December 2018. Party leaders continue to negotiate over forming governments in FBiH and the state-level Council of Ministers. Because the FBiH government did not fix electoral legislation before the election, the Electoral Commission adopted a decision to assign delegates to the House of Peoples based on the 2013 census. (The Electoral Commission's actions reportedly came amid strong pressure from U.S. and EU officials). Several Bosniak parties challenged the decision before the Constitutional Court; however, the Court declined to take on the case. Bosnia is one of Europe's poorest countries. The 1992-1995 war caused an estimated $110 billion in damage, and Bosnia's economy contracted to one-eighth of its prewar level. Despite significant reconstruction and recovery since 1995, GDP per capita was $5,148 in 2017, well below the EU average ($33,715) and that of Bulgaria ($8,031), its lowest-ranking member. Nearly one in five Bosnians lives below the poverty level. Bosnia's unemployment rate was 18% in 2018, down from 28% in 2015. Youth unemployment also declined in recent years from 60% to 46%. Nevertheless, these rates are still high by European standards. Since 2015, annual GDP growth has averaged around 3%, but it is largely driven by consumption (much of which in turn is fueled by migrant remittances). The IMF has urged Bosnia to privatize or restructure the nearly 550 state-owned enterprises that comprise roughly 20% of its economy; many of them are unprofitable but allegedly are used by politicians as \"cash cows and workplaces for loyal cadres.\" Bosnia participates in several free trade schemes. In 2006, it joined the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) alongside other non-EU countries in the region, including other ex-Yugoslav neighbors. Bosnia's Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the European Union, which entered into force in 2015, provides for almost fully free trade. A free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) also entered into force in 2015. The EU is Bosnia's primary trade partner. Germany, Italy, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria are Bosnia's key EU export markets, accounting for more than half of its exports in 2017. Serbia, another CEFTA signatory, is also an important export market. Bosnia's major exports include vehicle seats, raw materials, leather products, textiles, energy, and wood products. The EU is also Bosnia's primary source of foreign direct investment (FDI). In 2016, 63% of Bosnia's FDI came from EU countries, with Austria, Croatia, and Slovenia the top sources. Serbia is also a significant source of FDI (16.3%). However, Bosnia's fragmented legal and administrative structure create a challenging investment climate. Many relevant laws differ between the two entities. Corruption, entrenched economic interests, and political instability also deter investment. As a result, FDI amounts to just 2% of Bosnia's GDP, well below the Western Balkan average of 5%. Bosnia was the region's lowest-rated country in the World Bank's 2019 Ease of Doing Business Index. U.S. and EU policymakers view the NATO and EU accession processes as a positive force for democratization and reform in the Western Balkans, including Bosnia. According to analysts, this assessment informed the United States' partial retreat from the region in the 2000s and 2010s. EU membership is one of the few policy issues for which there is relatively broad consensus among Bosnia's politicians and population. The EU's \"fundamentals first\" approach to enlargement in the Western Balkans frontloads the accession process with meeting the core requirements of having a democratic political system and functioning market economy; in Bosnia, the EU is currently focused on issues relating to the rule of law, public administration reform, and economic development. In 2016, Bosnia submitted its application to join the EU. Its current status is potential candidate , which entitles it to receive financial assistance from the EU's Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance II (IPA II). Between 2014 and 2020, Bosnia is expected to receive €552 million in IPA II allocations, making the EU Bosnia's largest source of foreign assistance. Many EU member states provide additional aid to Bosnia through domestic foreign assistance programs. Bosnia's EU membership prospects are uncertain. In a 2018 progress report, the European Commission (the EU's executive) flagged Bosnia's slow implementation of reforms, including the 2015 Reform Agenda (a flagship EU initiative in Bosnia) and numerous domestic and international court rulings (see \"Legal Challenges,\" above). Some analysts question whether Bosnia, under its current political system, would be capable of meeting the membership requirement of harmonizing domestic legislation with the many thousands of provisions in the acquis communautaire, the cumulative body of EU legislation, case law, and regulations. In comparison to EU membership, Bosnian leaders are more divided over the issue of joining NATO. These divisions largely fall along Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat/Bosniak lines. Bosnian Serb opposition is rooted in resentment over NATO's role in the Bosnian war, and may also reflect a desire to remain in lockstep with neighboring Serbia, which also does not seek NATO membership. Bosnia joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in 2006 and secured an Individual Partnership Action Plan in 2008. In 2010, NATO indicated that it would launch a Membership Action Plan (MAP)—a program to help aspiring members meet membership requirements—once Bosnia meets several conditions, the most challenging of which is the reregistration of permanent defense installations from entity to state-level government. RS officials have resisted ceding control over defense installations on entity territory. Although Bosnia does not yet meet these requirements, in December 2018 NATO foreign ministers invited Bosnia to activate its MAP by submitting its first Annual National Program. Some analysts interpreted this invitation as a gesture to generate reform momentum in Bosnia's fragile post-election period. The Bosniak and Croat members of the presidency responded positively, but Bosnian Serb leaders (and most Bosnian Serbs) do not want Bosnia to join NATO. In October 2017, the RS National Assembly passed a resolution supporting military neutrality. RS President Željka Cvijanović reiterated this stance after NATO's invitation, and Dodik—now a member of the state-level presidency—also has vowed to pursue military neutrality. Bosnia's relations with Croatia and Serbia are seen as an important component of regional stability. However, bilateral relations have often been fraught as a legacy of the Bosnian war, as well as sensitivities over Croatia and Serbia's relations with Bosnian Croats and Serbs. While democratic gains in Croatia and Serbia after 2000 contributed to improved relations with Bosnia, they remain reluctant to examine or acknowledge their role in the Bosnian war. At times, Bosnian leaders have objected to what they describe as Croatian and Serbian meddling in Bosnia's affairs. Ex-Bosnian Croat member of the presidency Dragan Čović and current Bosnian Serb member of the presidency Milorad Dodik draw support from leaders in Croatia and Serbia and reportedly hold Croatian and Serbian citizenship, respectively, alongside their Bosnian citizenship. The Croatian government financially and politically backed Čović in Bosnia's 2018 elections, and Croatian politicians have raised the issue of Bosnian Croats' constitutional challenges (see above, \"Legal Challenges\") in forums like the European Parliament, NATO, and the United Nations. These moves prompted three former High Representatives to Bosnia to issue a joint letter expressing alarm over Croatia's \"meddling\" in Bosnia's internal affairs. The Croatian government also challenged the legitimacy of Željko Komšić as the Croat member of the Bosnian presidency (see above, \"2018 General Election\"). Some parties in Croatia hold Croatian election campaign events on Bosnian territory to mobilize Bosnian Croat voters with dual citizenship to vote in Croatia's elections. The Serbian government likewise supports Dodik, who is a frequent visitor to Belgrade. Some Serbian politicians have made statements supporting convicted Bosnian Serb war criminals, inflaming an issue that remains highly sensitive in Bosnia. Bosnia and Serbia have an unresolved demarcation dispute over approximately 40 square kilometers of border area, including a railway segment and hydroelectric power stations. Bosnia has dual citizenship treaties with Croatia and Serbia, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs acquiring dual citizenship. This has raised jurisdictional issues in cases in which indicted war criminals hold dual citizenship. Despite occasional tensions in their relations, Croatia and Serbia are important economic partners for Bosnia. Both countries are among Bosnia's top export markets and top sources of FDI. As part of its enlargement strategy in the Western Balkans, the EU has embraced a connectivity agenda to improve regional transportation, energy, and infrastructural linkages, reserving up to €1 billion in grants for projects for the period 2015-2020. Officials believe that improved connectivity could benefit bilateral relations and contribute to regional stability. Given its strategic location and relatively small, weak states, the Balkan region has long drawn in more powerful states. Many analysts maintain that as the United States and the European Union have both scaled back their presence in the Balkans to address other issues since the late 2000s, Russia, Turkey, and China partly filled the vacuum. U.S. and EU officials have expressed concern over Russian influence in the Western Balkans, particularly after Russia occupied Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014. Many analysts maintain that Russia does not have a grand strategy in the Western Balkans, but rather aims to prevent Euro-Atlantic integration and shore up its claims to great power status by asserting itself in the EU's \"inner courtyard.\" Analysts have identified several Russian tools in the region, including playing a \"spoiler\" role, projecting soft power, and leveraging energy dominance. Observers contend that Russia plays a \"spoiler\" role in Bosnia by exacerbating ethnic divisions, backing illiberal or anti-Western political factions, and helping to militarize RS. They claim that these actions help sustain the dysfunction and gridlock that undermine Bosnia's Euro-Atlantic reform efforts. Russia has supported Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat nationalist leaders Milorad Dodik and Dragan Čović. Dodik's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin just before Bosnia's October 7, 2018 general election was one of nearly ten meetings between the two over the past three years, signaling high-level Russian support. Many experts assert that Russia has been a key ally to Dodik in resisting Western pressure to cooperate on reforms. Moscow has also supported divisive RS policies. When Dodik violated a Bosnian Constitutional Court ruling in 2016 by holding a referendum to establish a controversial \"Statehood Day,\" Russia stood apart from the High Representative and Western diplomats by supporting the initiative. More recently, Russia stated its support for RS's controversial Srebrenica commission (see above). Analysts have also expressed concern at Russia's apparent support for Čović, who has advocated greater autonomy for Croats and the creation of a third Croat entity. Some analysts have expressed concern at Russia's role in RS's security sector. Russian forces have trained RS police special forces on counterterrorism and intelligence. Some observers believe that these exercises contribute to militarization in RS, potentially pushing the police force beyond its civilian law enforcement mandate. Analysts caution that militarization could increase the scale of violence in any confrontation between RS and the Bosnian government. Some Bosnian Serb ultranationalist and veterans groups have fought alongside pro-Russia combatants in Ukraine, and analysts believe they could be mobilized to support RS leaders as well. Russian soft power draws upon religious and cultural kinship with Bosnian Serbs, as well as Russia's history of support during the wars of Yugoslav disintegration. Kremlin-linked media, like Sputnik and RT , amplify existing anti-Western narratives and positively shape public opinion toward Russia. Some local media further propagate Sputnik and RT articles. A 2018 National Democratic Institute media study found that RS media stories about Russia were overwhelmingly positive, while the tone of most stories about the United States and NATO was negative. Pro-Russian media glorifies the Russian military, highlights cultural and religious links between Serbs and Russians, and documents high-level meetings between RS and Russian officials. Economic relations between Russia and RS have deepened in recent years. Russia is the largest source of FDI in RS, and it is largely concentrated in the energy sector. In 2007, Russian state-owned oil company Zarubezhneft bought RS's Bosanski Brod oil refinery, motor oil processing facilities in nearby Modrica, and retailer Banjaluka Petrol. Some analysts believe that these assets—which were purchased without an open tender—give Zarubezhneft influence in RS. In addition to being an important employer, Zarubezhneft is RS's biggest taxpayer; its value-added tax and excise duty contributions reportedly account for 25% of RS budget revenue. Bosnia depends upon Russian natural gas imports via Ukraine. Energy policy is vested in the entities, and Russian natural gas provider Gazprom reportedly has used its market dominance to pit the two entities against one another and undermine projects that would diversify supplies. Many analysts believe that Turkey's influence in Bosnia has increased over the last two decades due to Ankara's close relationship with Bosniak leaders. Some Turkish officials reportedly view Bosnia as a natural sphere of influence given geographic and historical connections. Observers note that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has at times invoked Ottoman-era ties to Bosnia and religious kinship with Bosniaks as soft power tools. Turkish influence in Bosnia has expanded since Yugoslavia's collapse. During the 1992-1995 war, Turkey gained prestige among Bosniaks by condemning the international arms embargo against Bosnia, arguing that it prevented Bosniaks from defending themselves. Turkey, as well as other predominantly Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, reportedly supplied Bosniak forces with arms. Turkish influence has continued since the war's end. Bosnia is one of the top recipients of Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency assistance; much of this support is earmarked for projects to restore Ottoman-era buildings and monuments. A Turkish Cultural Center was established in Bosnia in 2003, and in 2009 the Yunus Emre Foundation, an NGO founded by the Turkish government, opened an office in Sarajevo to promote Turkish language and culture. Turkey has popular support among Bosniaks. In a 2018 International Republican Institute survey, 76% of Bosniak respondents had positive views of Turkey—the strongest support among Bosniaks for any foreign state. Many Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs look to Croatia and Serbia as external protectors, and some analysts believe that Turkey has attempted to establish a similar role for itself vis-à-vis Bosniaks. Observers contend that Erdogan's ruling party has particularly strong ties to the largest Bosniak ethnic party, the SDA. Erdogan and Turkish state-owned media openly supported SDA candidate Bakir Izetbegović in his bid for the Bosniak seat on the presidency in 2014. Some observers believe that Izetbegović's clout within the SDA rests in part on his support from Erdogan. Economic relations between Bosnia and Turkey have deepened in recent years. Turkish FDI in Bosnia accounted for 5.6% of FDI flows in 2016. One notable project is a highway to connect Sarajevo to Belgrade, Serbia. After years of disagreement, Bosnian officials approved the route in February 2019. Turkey is expected to provide funding for some of the expected €3 billion in costs, although the terms of the contract are not yet resolved. Some officials, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have expressed concern over Turkey's alleged ambitions as part of broader EU concern over external influence in the Balkans. However, analysts caution that Turkey's ambitions and capabilities in the Balkans may be overstated. They note that the scope of Turkish investment is sometimes exaggerated in the media, and that proposed projects do not always come to fruition. While Russian and Turkish influence in Bosnia relies in part on soft power, China's presence in Bosnia is primarily economic. Between 2011 and 2019, Chinese investments in Bosnia amounted to an estimated $3.6 billion, primarily in the form of direct lending for energy and transportation projects. Chinese firms have contracts to construct or expand energy plants, including a €350 million loan to construct a coal-fired plant in Stanari, RS. A €1.4 billion deal was signed to construct a highway between Banja Luka and Mlinište. In March 2019, the EU Energy Community criticized the FBiH entity government's decision to guarantee a €600 million loan from China's Exim Bank to build a coal-fired power plant in Tuzla. However, some analysts caution that China's economic influence in Bosnia may be overstated at present. While China's pledged investments in high-visibility projects garner media attention, the actual amount of Chinese FDI is far less than that of the EU. Moreover, many pledged projects do not come to fruition. Nevertheless, EU and U.S. officials have voiced concern over the scope of China's investments in the Balkans, as well as Chinese lending practices. Chinese loans often require recipient state governments to assume the loan burden, potentially leading to high external debt. The EU has also raised concerns that Chinese lending practices violate EU rules in public procurement because they frequently require use of Chinese contractors, laborers, or supplies. In contrast to EU funds, which are partly designed to spur reform, Chinese loans have few conditions and rules linked to transparency or reform. Finally, EU officials have expressed concern that China's economic might could be a source of leverage over recipient states that are candidates or potential candidates for EU membership and thus impede the EU's ability to speak with one voice on relations with China if they do become members. Bosnia was not a core transit country in the \"Balkan Route\" that hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees followed in an attempt to reach the EU during heightened flows in 2015 and early 2016. However, recent route shifts have brought more migrant and refugee traffic through Bosnia. Since early 2018, an estimated 23,000 migrants and refugees have entered Bosnia; approximately 25% of them remain in the country. Most of them hope to enter EU territory via Bosnia's neighbor, Croatia, and from there move on and enter the EU's visa- and passport-free Schengen Area. However, the Croatian government has expanded border policing, and apprehended individuals are sent back to Bosnia. The EU provided €2 million in 2018 to help Bosnia respond to the crisis and provide shelter to migrants and refugees who are effectively stranded in Bosnia. The migration crisis has triggered a backlash from some Bosnians, particularly in Una-Sana Canton, which borders Croatia and has the highest concentration of migrants and refugees. Some residents of Bihać, Una-Sana's administrative center, protested against camps situated in their municipality in October 2018, while local authorities in Velika Kladuša, another city in the canton, reportedly obstructed the Ministry of Security's plans to house migrants in a local building. The incident illustrates local backlash as well as the state-level government's difficulty enforcing its decisions, even when it has jurisdiction. Islam was introduced to part of Bosnia's population during Ottoman rule. In socialist Yugoslavia, the semi-official Islamic Religious Community played a key role in religious affairs, including legal rulings and religious education. It was renamed the Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, and remains an important religious institution. Islamic tradition in the Balkans, including Bosnia, is generally moderate and secular. The majority of Bosnia's practicing Muslims follow the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam. However, some analysts have expressed concern over the emergence of groups influenced or funded by state and non-state entities in the Arab Gulf states, where more conservative Hanbali Sunni practices are common. Aid workers, missionaries, and \"mujahedeen\" fighters from the Gulf States promoted transnational Islamist militancy and Salafist Hanbali religious doctrine during Bosnia's 1992-1995 war; Iran's government also supported Bosniak leaders and forces. After the war, Saudi Arabia provided an estimated $600 million in aid to repair and build hundreds of mosques and establish schools and cultural centers that promote socially conservative Sunni views. Iran has also maintained active cultural outreach and other ties to some Bosnian Muslims. Many analysts contend that Salafi groups have limited support in Bosnia because of the traditionally high level of secularism among Bosnian Muslims. They also note that few Bosnian Muslims who subscribe to Salafist ideas and practices have violent intentions, and many of them live in remote rural communities. While most of these groups were not originally affiliated with official religious organizations in Bosnia, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia's Islamic Community exerted pressure on them to acknowledge his authority and his right to monitor religious content. As a result, an estimated 90% of Salafi groups were brought under official structures. Nevertheless, some experts caution that radicalized groups and individuals may pose a terrorist threat despite their small numbers. Radicalized Muslims were implicated in the bombing of a police station in Bugojno in 2010 and a lone-gunman attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo in 2011. The Islamic State (IS) and Nusra Front's gains in Syria and Iraq in the 2010s altered the dynamic of the terrorism threat in Bosnia and broadened the use of social media in recruitment. Between 2012 and 2017, an estimated 350 Bosnian citizens traveled from Bosnia or Bosnian diaspora communities to fight with armed groups in Iraq and Syria. More recently, returned foreign fighters are seen as a potential threat as the position of the IS and other armed groups has weakened. Bosnia's stock of illegal weapons, mines, and explosives may exacerbate the risk posed by returnees. As of December 2017, officials believed that just over 100 Bosnians remained in Syria (including women and children), roughly 50 had returned to Bosnia, and 70 had been killed in the conflict. In 2014, the Bosnian government introduced new criminal offenses to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters and recruiters. Several dozen returned fighters and domestic recruiters have been convicted of these offenses. While the U.S. State Department describes Bosnia as a \"cooperative counterterrorism partner,\" it warns that Bosnia's political fragmentation and dysfunction could undermine counterterrorism efforts. For example, in 2017 several ministries proposed new measures to tighten counterterrorism efforts; however, they were not enacted due to political gridlock in state-level and FBiH governments. Initially viewed as a \"European problem,\" the Bosnian conflict eventually helped shape the post-Cold War role of the United States and NATO in European security. When the United States assumed greater responsibilities in resolving the conflict, its role was considerable: leading NATO airstrikes, garnering diplomatic support from Russia and European allies, persuading warring parties to agree to a ceasefire, brokering the Dayton Peace Agreement, and deploying 20,000 troops to Bosnia. According to Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. official who brokered the talks, the Bosnian war was a pivotal period in U.S. foreign policy in Europe: \"The three main pillars of [policy]—U.S.-Russian relations, NATO enlargement into Central Europe, and Bosnia—had often worked against each other. Now they reinforced each other: NATO sent its forces out of area for the first time in its history, and Russian troops, under an American commander, were deployed alongside them.\" Some analysts and policymakers believe that the United States' strong hand in resolving the conflict and in shaping Bosnia's political system have made it a stakeholder in Bosnia's future. U.S. officials, often in cooperation with the EU, have intervened to defuse crises and broker reform talks. The United States also has imposed sanctions against Bosnian officials: in addition to Dodik (see above), the U.S. State Department publicly designated Bosnian Serb politician Nikola Špirić (Dodik's associate) for \"significant corruption or gross violation of human rights.\" U.S. policymakers attach strategic importance to Bosnia's stability; many analysts believe turbulence in Bosnia could reverberate in the Balkans and potentially draw in Croatia and Serbia, while instability in other parts of the region could spill over into Bosnia. When the Trump Administration indicated in 2018 that it would consider supporting a potential Serbia-Kosovo agreement to \"adjust borders\" between the two—a major break with the long-standing EU and U.S. policy to oppose redrawing borders in the Balkans along ethnic lines—some analysts expressed concern that the Administration could reshape long-standing U.S. policy toward Bosnia. However, the new U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia stated in February 2019 that the U.S. will continue to be \"guarantor of Bosnia and Herzegovina's sovereignty and territorial integrity.\" On the other hand, many observers also note that U.S. engagement in Bosnia (and the Western Balkans) decreased under the administrations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. During this time U.S. policymakers turned their focus to geopolitical crises and challenges in other parts of the globe while ceding the regional lead to the EU. Indeed, some analysts have urged the United States to assume a greater role in Bosnia, arguing that Bosnia's current crises warrant it, and that the EU and the United States are more effective in the region when they work together. Congressional interest in Bosnia dates back to the 1992-1995 war. Many Members featured prominently in foreign policy debates over U.S. intervention in the conflict. In 2015, the House passed a resolution describing the Srebrenica massacres as a genocide and urging the United States to continue to support Bosnia's territorial integrity ( H.Res. 310 , 114 th Congress). In the 114 th and 115 th Congresses, a bill was introduced in the Senate to establish an enterprise fund to promote economic development and the private sector in Bosnia ( S. 2307 and S. 864 ). In April 2018, the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats held a hearing on Bosnia's prospects ahead of its October 2018 elections. Congress's engagement with Bosnia also continues within the broader context of policy concern over the external influence of China, Turkey, and Russia in the Western Balkans and energy security. As a potential candidate for EU membership and NATO partner, Bosnia is eligible for assistance through the Countering Russian Influence Funds under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) enacted in 2017 ( P.L. 115-44 ). Through congressionally approved (and sometimes expanded) foreign assistance appropriations, Bosnia has received more than $2 billion in aid since 1995. Between 1996 and 1999, the United States pledged $1 billion of the $4 billion international commitment to implementing Dayton's civilian provisions and helping to rebuild Bosnia. The cost of U.S. military operations in Bosnia since 1992 is estimated at more than $10 billion ( Appendix I ). Bosnia continues to receive U.S. foreign assistance, although the amount has decreased in recent years. Assistance to Bosnia in FY2015 and FY2016 was approximately $33 million each year. In FY2017, it was $53.5 million, and $41.5 million in FY2018. The Administration requested $21 million for FY2019 and $16.9 million for FY2020. Nearly 25 years after the Dayton Peace Agreement, Bosnia faces many challenges. In considering U.S. relations with Bosnia, Members of Congress may consider the following questions: How can the United States encourage Bosnia's government to incorporate the legal rulings of the Bosnian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights into election legislation and the constitution? How can U.S. foreign assistance be used to counter Russian influence in Republika Srpska, in particular Russia's close ties to Bosnian Serb politicians and its use of local media and Sputnik to amplify anti-U.S. narratives and project pro-Russia soft power? What are the implications of potential militarization in Republika Srpska? How can the United States effectively address this alleged trend? How can the United States support a successful reform initiative that secures transparency and accountability, and facilitates a political community in which politicians and voters are committed to the Bosnian state and socioeconomic challenges that transcend all three ethnic groups? Can the Germany-U.K. initiative from 2015 be revived, or is it better to start from scratch? Are the approximately 600 troops in the European Union Force mission in Bosnia sufficient to stabilize Bosnia if violence breaks out? If Serbia and Kosovo agree to normalize relations by redrawing their borders, how can U.S. policymakers prevent this development from destabilizing Bosnia, particularly given Milorad Dodik's threats to seek RS secession if Kosovo is \"partitioned\"? How can the United States encourage Croatia and Serbia to engage in Bosnia in a manner that helps bridge ethnic divisions and contributes to Bosnia's territorial integrity and sovereignty? Given the pervasiveness of corruption in Bosnia, how can U.S. assistance most effectively be used to counter it? Does foreign assistance contribute to civic groups and independent media that could serve as a check against corruption? ", "answers": ["Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter, \"Bosnia\") drew heavily on U.S. support after gaining independence from Yugoslavia in 1992. The United States helped end the Bosnian war (1992-1995), one of the most lethal conflicts in Europe since the Second World War, by leading NATO airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces, brokering the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995, and deploying 20,000 U.S. troops. Some Members of Congress became involved in policy debates over these measures, and Congress monitored and at times challenged the Bush and Clinton Administrations' response through numerous hearings, resolutions, and legislative proposals. Since 1995, the United States has been a major source of aid to Bosnia and firmly supports its territorial integrity. The United States also supports Bosnia's aspirations for NATO and European Union (EU) membership. Today, Bosnia faces serious challenges. Nearly 25 years after the Dayton Agreement, Bosnia continues to use part of the Agreement as its constitution, which divides the country into two ethnoterritorial entities. Critics charge that Bosnia's political system is too decentralized to enact the reforms required for NATO and EU membership. They also contend that the ethnic power-sharing arrangements and veto points embedded in numerous government bodies are sources of gridlock. Domestic and international courts have ruled against several aspects of Bosnia's constitution, yet the Bosnian government thus far has failed to implement these rulings. Since Bosnia's independence, its politics has been dominated by ethnic parties representing the country's three main groups: Bosniaks (Slavic Muslims), Croats, and Serbs. These parties have prospered under a system that critics charge lacks transparency and accountability. Critics also maintain that ethnic party leaders use divisive nationalist rhetoric to distract from serious issues affecting the country as a whole, including poverty, unemployment, and stalled political reforms. The Bosnian population exhibits low trust in political parties and the government, and disaffection toward the country's elite. U.S. and EU officials brokered several ultimately unsuccessful rounds of constitutional reform negotiations, and continue to call on Bosnia's leaders to implement reforms to make governance more efficient and effective, dismantle patronage networks, and bring Bosnia closer to EU and NATO membership. However, there is little consensus among the country's leaders on how the country should be reformed. Bosnian Serb leaders from the Serb-majority entity (Republika Srpska) have called for greater autonomy and even secession from Bosnia. Some Bosnian Croat leaders have called for partitioning Bosnia's other entity, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to create a separate Croat-majority entity. Bosniak leaders, by contrast, generally prefer a more centralized state. Many analysts caution that any move to partition the country could lead to renewed violence, while greater decentralization could make Bosnia's government less functional. U.S. policy has long been oriented toward preserving Bosnia's statehood. Bosnia's 2018 general elections largely returned to power the same entrenched ethnic parties. Of particular concern is the election of Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik to Bosnia's collective presidency. Dodik, a sharp critic of the United States and NATO, has periodically called for a referendum on Republika Srpska's secession. He is under U.S. sanctions for obstructing the Dayton Agreement. In addition to these internal challenges, U.S. and EU officials have expressed concern over external influence in the region. Russia reportedly relies on soft power, energy leverage, and \"spoiler\" tactics to influence Bosnia, particularly in the Serb-majority entity. Turkish soft power draws on Bosnia's Ottoman-era heritage and Turkey's shared religious tradition with Bosniaks. China is a more recent presence in the region, but its heavy investments and lending have prompted concern on both sides of the Atlantic. Policymakers have also expressed concern at the challenges posed by the return of Bosnians who fought with the Islamic State and Nusra Front in Syria and Iraq. Many observers contend that the United States remains a stakeholder in Bosnia's future because of its central role in resolving the conflict and shaping the postwar Bosnian state. Given the history of U.S. involvement in Bosnia, Bosnia's importance to regional stability in the Balkans, and concerns over Russian and Chinese influence in Bosnia, Members of Congress may be interested in monitoring how the country navigates its internal and external challenges. Congress may also consider future U.S. aid levels to Bosnia and the degree to which such assistance supports the long-standing U.S. policy objectives for Bosnia of territorial integrity, NATO and EU integration, energy security, and resilience against malign influence."], "length": 8598, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "f8113f184e34b1df24257645d9db41dbec8c2c4e6e4e7e1b"}
{"input": "", "context": "IHS was established within the Public Health Service in 1955 to provide health services to members of AI/AN tribes, primarily in rural areas on or near reservations. IHS provides these services directly through a network of hospitals, clinics and health stations, while also providing funds to tribally operated facilities. These federally and tribally operated facilities are located primarily in service areas that are rural, isolated, and underserved. In fiscal year 2017, IHS allocated about $1.9 billion for health services provided by federally and tribally operated facilities. Federally operated IHS facilities, which received over 5.2 million outpatient visits and over 15,000 inpatient admissions in 2016, provide mostly primary and emergency care, as well as some ancillary and specialty services in 26 hospitals, 55 health centers, and 21 health stations. According to IHS, federally operated IHS hospitals range in size from 4 to 133 beds and generally are open 24 hours a day for emergency care needs; health centers offer a range of care, including primary care services and some ancillary services, such as pharmacy, laboratory, and X-ray services, and are open for at least 40 hours a week; and health stations offer only primary care services on a regularly scheduled basis and are open fewer than 40 hours a week. The 12 IHS area offices are responsible for distributing funds to the facilities in their areas, monitoring their operation, and providing guidance and technical assistance (see fig. 1). In addition, five human resources regional offices assist the area offices in the recruitment and hiring of providers. IHS federally operated facilities employ both federal civil service personnel and Commissioned Corps officers. IHS may pay higher salaries for certain federal civil service providers through the development and implementation of special pay tables, which specify the ranges of salaries that these certain providers can receive. According to IHS officials, the Commissioned Corps officers follow the same process for applying for positions at IHS as federal civil service employees. However, the Commissioned Corps officers are uniformed health professionals whose pay and allowances are different. IHS also supplements its workforce capacity with both temporary and long-term contracts with individual physicians or a medical staffing company. IHS downloads information on all funded and active positions from the Capital Human Resource Management System, an HHS data system used for personnel and payment transactions that IHS began using in 2016 to track all employee vacancies. According to IHS officials, the accuracy of the data is verified quarterly by regional human resources officers. As the IHS health care workforce also includes Commissioned Corps officers—who have a separate personnel system—the information on Commissioned Corps officers assigned to IHS are entered into the Capital Human Resource Management System manually, according to IHS officials. According to the National Rural Health Association, the challenges of rural health care delivery are different than those in urban areas. These challenges include those related to more complex patient health status and poorer socioeconomic conditions, as well as physician workforce shortages. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, compared with their urban counterparts, residents of rural counties are older, poorer, more likely to be overweight or obese, and sicker. Those living in rural areas also have greater transportation difficulties reaching health care providers, often traveling great distances to reach a doctor or hospital. Exacerbating these challenges is a relative scarcity of medical providers in rural areas compared to urban areas. For example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported the primary care physician- to-patient ratio in rural areas in 2012 was 39.8 physicians per 100,000 people, compared to 53.3 physicians per 100,000 in urban areas. IHS data demonstrate large percentages of vacancies for providers in the 8 areas in which IHS has substantial direct care responsibilities. As of November 2017, the overall percentage of vacancies for physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, certified nurse midwives, physician assistants, dentists, and pharmacists in these areas was 25 percent, ranging from 13 to 31 percent across the areas. (See fig. 2) However, variation in vacancy rates existed among provider types across IHS areas. For example, while the overall percentage of vacancies for physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, dentists, and physician assistants each exceeded 25 percent, the vacancy rate for pharmacists was less than 25 percent. In addition, for certain provider types in some areas, more than one-third of the positions were vacant. For example, although 29 percent of the total positions for physicians across these 8 areas were vacant, the vacancy rate ranged from 21 percent in the Oklahoma City area to 46 percent in the Bemidji and Billings areas. (See fig. 3.) As another example, although 27 percent of the total positions for nurses across these 8 areas were vacant, the vacancy rate ranged from 10 percent in the Oklahoma City area to 36 percent in the Albuquerque and Bemidji areas. (See fig. 4.) Similarly, across these 8 areas 32 percent of the total positions for nurse practitioners were vacant, ranging from 12 percent in the Oklahoma City area to 47 percent in the Albuquerque area; 27 percent of the total positions for dentists were vacant, ranging from 14 percent in the Phoenix area to 39 percent in the Bemidji area; and 30 percent of the total positions for physician assistants were vacant, and although 4 of the areas had few such positions (the Albuquerque, Bemidji, Oklahoma City, and Portland areas each had 7 or fewer positions), the percentage of vacancies in the 4 areas with 15 or more such positions ranged from 21 percent in the Phoenix area to 40 percent in the Billings area. In contrast, 13 percent of the total positions for pharmacists were vacant, ranging from 3 percent in the Bemidji area to 17 percent in the Albuquerque area. For more information about the vacancies for specific clinical positions, see appendix I. While sizeable vacancies existed across provider types and areas, the majority of positions in all eight areas were occupied by civilians, and about 13 percent were filled by Commissioned Corps officers who are fulfilling assignments with a minimum 2-year term. The percentages of positions by IHS area that were vacant, filled by civilians, and filled by Commissioned Corps officers as of November 2017 are shown in figure 5. IHS officials told us they have experienced considerable challenges in filling vacancies for providers—as well as negative effects on patient care and provider satisfaction when positions are vacant. According to IHS officials, the rural locations and geographic isolation of some IHS facilities create recruitment and retention difficulties. IHS data indicate that 36 of the 102 IHS facilities, including four hospitals, are identified as isolated hardship (ISOHAR) posts. Agency documentation describes ISOHAR posts as ‘‘unusually difficult, which may present moderate to severe physical hardships for individuals assigned to that geographic location,’’ and states that physical hardships may include crime or violence, pollution, isolation, a harsh climate, scarcity of goods on the local market, and other problems. In addition, IHS has reported that insufficient housing, substandard schools, lack of entertainment opportunities, and shopping centers located more than three hours away are all typical not only of ISOHAR posts, but also of many other IHS facility locations. Officials stated that, especially for job candidates and employees with families, these can be critical factors in choosing whether or not to accept or stay in a position. For example, officials from the Portland Area office told us the Colville Service Unit has experienced challenges recruiting physicians because the service unit is 110 miles away from Spokane, and many of the smaller towns nearby have limited amenities—including limited employment opportunities for spouses and school systems that may not meet the expectations of some prospective employees. In addition to hardships generally associated with rural locations, IHS facilities can experience additional challenges specific to recruiting and retaining providers for facilities on tribal lands. For example, Navajo area officials told us that providers who are non-native or are not married to a tribal member generally must go off the reservation to find housing if it is not provided by IHS. According to IHS, the Navajo Nation is one of the largest Indian reservations in the United States, consisting of more than 25,000 contiguous square miles and three satellite communities, and extending into portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Living off the reservation can result in long commutes, contributing to a difficult work- life balance. Furthermore, IHS officials noted, public transportation such as buses or trains do not exist in proximity to most IHS facilities. IHS facility staff told us long-standing vacancies have a direct negative effect on patient access to quality health care, as well as employee morale. Officials from multiple facilities we visited told us they have had to cut certain patient services due to ongoing provider vacancies. For example, officials from the Phoenix Area office told us the Nevada Skies Youth Wellness Center, an adolescent substance abuse treatment center, decreased the number of beds available due to staffing vacancies. Similarly, officials from the Rosebud Hospital stated the facility has diverted obstetrics patients to other facilities since July 2016 due to a shortage of physicians, nurses, and nurse anesthetists. During the diversion, those patients were referred to other hospitals in Valentine, Nebraska, and Winner, South Dakota—about 45 miles away. An official from the Sioux San Hospital said that because of vacancies in the diagnostic testing laboratory, the hospital stopped conducting Chlamydia tests in-house and instead sends specimens out to another laboratory for testing. As a result, the official stated it takes about a week longer to get the test results, which can delay treatment. In addition facility staff we interviewed told us the increased stress and fatigue of providers working to make up for staffing shortages results in decreased employee morale. These staff stated that, in some cases, this stress and fatigue has caused providers to leave IHS. One doctor we spoke with described this dynamic of vacancies begetting additional vacancies as a “never-ending cycle” for the facility. In an effort to recruit and retain permanent employees, IHS has used strategies that are similar to strategies used by VHA and tribal facilities in our review. Specifically, IHS has provided financial incentives, professional development opportunities, and some access to housing. The agency has also taken steps to recruit students and connect with potential applicants through webinars, career fairs, and conferences. IHS offers increased special salary rates for certain health care positions, as well as other financial incentives, such as recruitment and retention bonuses. IHS also offers student loan repayments, in return for health professionals’ commitment to work at IHS for a specified period of time. Special salary rates. IHS offers special higher salary rates for physicians, dentists, nurses, CRNAs, certified nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, optometrists, pharmacists, and physician assistants. IHS officials stated that special salary rates are an important recruitment and retention tool for providers, and that without them, federally operated IHS facilities would be at a competitive disadvantage with the private sector, VHA, and tribally operated facilities. In 2015 IHS reported that recruiting and retaining CRNAs was “an ongoing problem for IHS—mostly due to pay,” and the agency rarely had “a sufficient applicant pool.” IHS reported “CRNA services were integral to IHS operations” and without the ability to recruit and retain these providers, IHS was “at risk of having to curtail services to clients.” As a result, according to IHS officials, the agency developed special salary rates for CRNAs, which became effective on December 31, 2015. As of November 2017, IHS had no CRNA vacancies. However, according to IHS officials, the agency has only developed seven national special pay tables and two local special pay tables for Alaska, as of January 2018, due to a lack of human resources personnel trained in this process. Officials told us only one human resources staff person at IHS is experienced with developing special pay tables, which takes a substantial amount of work. However, they stated that this task is only one of her job responsibilities, and she can complete about one special pay table each year. In comparison, according to an official, VHA has developed and regularly revises over 3,000 special salary rates based on local market conditions. For example, IHS officials stated that Phoenix Indian Medical Center cannot offer salaries that are competitive with VHA because salaries for providers in the Phoenix area are relatively high compared to national salaries, and IHS has not developed local salary rates in the Phoenix market. For example, using pay rates effective January 7, 2018, a nurse just starting a career in the Phoenix area could make $63,871 at VHA (local pay table), versus $44,835 at IHS (national pay table). Although offering increased salaries is an important strategy that IHS uses for recruitment, IHS still experiences challenges in offering competitive salaries. Officials from two area offices told us the maximum amount for a physician salary or certain nursing salaries were not enough for some potential hires, who sought employment elsewhere. While IHS may seek approval from HHS to exceed the maximum salary of certain pay tables, IHS officials said the approval process can be lengthy, which has resulted in the loss of promising candidates—including emergency medicine, general surgery, radiology, and anesthesiologist providers. Similarly, officials from one area office stated that federally operated IHS facilities have experienced challenges competing with other health care systems in recruiting local health care providers, including tribally operated facilities. For example, officials from the Oklahoma City area office told us their area has four of the largest American Indian tribes in the country running their own health systems. According to these officials, in addition to IHS funds, these tribes use money from other sources to pay health care salaries. IHS officials explained that, as a result, tribes can pay higher salaries and may be able to offer other incentives that IHS is unable to provide. Recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. IHS may offer recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. Specifically, for positions that are difficult to fill or for individuals who are unlikely to accept the position without an incentive, IHS may offer potential employees a recruitment incentive up to 25 percent of their annual salary. IHS may also pay a relocation incentive for a current employee who must relocate for a position that would otherwise be difficult to fill. In addition, IHS may pay a retention incentive of up to 25 percent of an employee’s current salary if he or she (1) has unusually high or unique qualifications or if there is a special need of the agency, which makes retention essential, or (2) is likely to leave IHS without the retention incentive. Officials from the Phoenix area office told us IHS facilities use the retention bonuses extensively for nursing staff, in particular, to help match the market pay. IHS also analyzed the recruitment and retention of nurses and, as a result of this analysis, requested an exception to the 25 percent limit on recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives, from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In December, 2017, OPM approved IHS’s request to offer incentives up to 50 percent, and IHS officials told us that they are currently reviewing implementation options. Loan repayment. IHS’s Loan Repayment Program pays provider education loans in exchange for an initial two-year service commitment to practice in health facilities serving AI/AN communities. Recipients agree to serve two years in exchange for up to $20,000 per year in loan repayment funding and up to an additional $5,000 per year to offset tax liability, which IHS pays directly to the Internal Revenue Service. Loan repayment recipients can extend their initial two-year contract on an annual basis until their original approved educational loan debt is paid. In fiscal year 2017, a total of 1,267 providers—about 8 percent of the federal IHS workforce—were receiving IHS loan repayments. This included 434 new two-year contracts, 396 one-year extension contracts, and 437 providers starting the second year of their fiscal year 2016 two-year contract. However, IHS’s Loan Repayment Program is not able to pay for the loans of all providers who request it due to limited funding. According to officials in one area office, this has caused providers to either decline a job offer or leave IHS. According to IHS’s fiscal year 2019 budget justification, in fiscal year 2017, 412 providers employed by IHS who applied for loan repayment, did not receive one. An additional 376 applicants either declined a job offer because they did not receive loan repayment funding or were unable to find a suitable assignment meeting their personal or professional needs. Officials in the Billings Area Office told us several physicians stated during exit interviews that they were leaving because they did not receive the loan repayment funding they hoped to receive. According to area office officials, the Billings area lost 5 physicians in 2 weeks because they were not awarded loan repayments. In addition to its own loan repayment program, IHS has worked with HHS’s Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to increase opportunities for providers to apply for loan repayment through the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, IHS worked with HRSA to increase the number of facilities deemed medically underserved and therefore designated Health Professional Shortage Areas. According to IHS, this resulted in 684 health care delivery sites for placement of National Health Service Corps providers, and the number of placements increased to 443 providers as of August 2016. As of January 2018, according to IHS officials, there were 499 providers serving at 797 eligible sites. Applicants cannot receive loan repayment from more than one program concurrently. Officials from several facilities told us they provide access to professional development opportunities for IHS employees as a retention tool. For example, Northern Navajo Medical Facility (Shiprock) officials said they are sending nurse managers and two to three potential future leaders to the American Organization of Nurse Executive trainings. Officials told us this training allows the nurses to network with private executives and look at fellowships. In addition, Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility officials told us they paid for a 2-year residency at University of Texas Health Science Center so one of their dentists could obtain additional training in pediatric dentistry. Officials told us that, in return, the dentist agreed to stay at the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility for 6 years. In addition, Shiprock service unit officials told us they have offered their providers, through a partnership with the University of New Mexico, an online Masters of Science in Public Health program in health management. When housing is limited near IHS facilities, IHS has made some housing available to assist with recruitment and retention of providers. Area officials told us federally operated IHS facilities in the Albuquerque, Great Plains, Phoenix, Billings, and Navajo areas provide some government- subsidized housing for providers and their families. At four of the seven facilities we visited—the Kayenta Health Center, Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility, Rosebud Hospital, and Pine Ridge Hospital—we observed some staff housing. Kayenta Health Center. Officials from Kayenta Health Center told us that they provide 158 housing units, from 1 bedroom to 4 bedrooms. In addition, the facility has a 19-unit building, similar to a hotel (fully furnished), for temporary contract providers. Officials said they are considering opening units in this building to permanent employees. Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility. Officials from Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility told us there are 264, 1 to 4 bedroom housing units available for providers both on its campus and nearby. IHS officials also told us they provide access to 19 parking spaces for camping vehicles. Rosebud Hospital. Officials from Rosebud Hospital stated they provide 150 housing units and are also constructing a 19-unit hotel- style building. They said that most, if not all, candidates from outside of the area ask about housing unit availability when deciding whether to accept a position. Pine Ridge Hospital. Officials from Pine Ridge Hospital told us that IHS also provides 105 housing units for its employees. IHS officials explained the housing is a necessity for on-call providers because staff without on-site housing are required to commute extreme distances in very harsh environments to locate housing outside of reservation boundaries. See figure 6 for examples of government-subsidized provider housing near the Kayenta Health Center, Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility, Rosebud Hospital, and Pine Ridge Hospital. See appendix II for information about housing provided by one selected tribe. However, there is a greater demand for housing than IHS can provide. During our site visit, Chinle Health Care Facility officials stated that government-subsidized housing availability to meet employee demand is severely limited at all of their three facilities, and the availability of private housing in the community is “non-existent.” As a result, IHS officials from Chinle told us that some providers commute 60 to 90 minutes to work one-way each day. IHS officials told us that, after conducting a needs assessment in 2016, they determined the unmet need for housing at IHS facilities was 1,100 units. According to these officials, the needs assessment also helped them identify some of the greatest needs for housing. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal for IHS requested $12 million to build new staff housing units “in isolated and remote locations for healthcare professionals to enhance recruitment and retention.” According to agency officials, based on its needs assessment, HHS provided $24 million to build new staff housing units at the Rosebud and Pine Ridge hospitals in the Great Plains area, at the Crownpoint and Chinle health care facilities in the Navajo areas, and at the Supai clinic in the Phoenix area. IHS has also taken steps to recruit future providers by providing scholarships, externships, internships, and residency rotations to health professional students. Scholarships. IHS’s scholarship program provides financial support to qualified AI/AN candidates in exchange for a minimum 2-year service commitment within an Indian health program. Nearly 7,000 AI/AN students have received scholarship awards since the program started in 1978. The awards include (1) scholarships for candidates enrolled in preparatory or undergraduate prerequisite courses in preparation for entry to a health professions school, (2) pre-graduate scholarships for candidates enrolled in courses leading to a bachelor’s degree, including pre-medicine, pre-dentistry, and pre-podiatry, and (3) health professions scholarships for candidates who are enrolled in an eligible health profession degree program. According to IHS, in fiscal year 2017, there were 805 new scholarship applications submitted. After evaluating the applications, 331 applications were deemed eligible for funding, and the program was able to fund 108 new awards. The IHS Scholarship program also reviewed applications from previously awarded scholars who were continuing their education. In fiscal year 2017, 154 continuation awards were funded. In addition to the scholarship program, according to IHS officials, the agency funds two medical students enrolled at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences each year. Each graduate agrees to a 10-year obligation to IHS after medical school graduation and completion of training. In future years, IHS endeavors to fund two additional medical students at the Uniformed Service University of Health Sciences. Externships and internships. IHS provides scholarship recipients with opportunities to receive clinical experience in IHS facilities. In fiscal year 2017, the agency funded 94 students, who were employed for 30 to 120 workdays per calendar year. In addition, IHS provides externships to students temporarily called to active duty as Commissioned Corps officers through the Commissioned Officer Student Training and Extern Program (COSTEP). IHS officials said that the agency funded about 60-70 students in COSTEP in 2016. IHS also offers a Virtual Internship program through a partnership with the Department of State. Virtual interns spend 10 hours a week from September through May working remotely on their projects, which have included producing bilingual Navajo and English videos for rural health clinics, developing Navajo-specific health education materials on palliative care, improving behavioral health data collection methods, and creating social media strategies and campaigns for health promotion. For the 2017-2018 academic year, about 15 students are participating in virtual internships with IHS. Residency rotations. IHS service units offer rotation opportunities for medical, nursing, optometry, dental, and pharmacy residents as a recruitment tool because research shows students are likely to stay and practice medicine in the area where they studied. For example, the Oklahoma City area has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Oklahoma State College of Medicine, which permits area officials to annually recruit up to two residents from the current year’s residency class to become federal employees while completing their residency program. For every year that IHS sponsors the residents’ position at the university, the resident has a one-year service obligation. In addition, IHS officials from Chinle stated that the service unit participates in educational agreements with numerous universities and residency programs to host medical students, nursing students, and medical residents for rotations. According to officials, recent graduates from residency programs applying for permanent positions with the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility often cite prior rotations at the service unit, or word of mouth from students or residents who have rotated through the service unit, as a reason for applying. The IHS Pharmacy Resident Program is another recruitment program that offers residency training to pharmacists who are willing to serve in high-need locations. Pharmacy residents who are Commissioned Corps officers are required to complete 2 years of service at an IHS federal or tribal facility. Twenty-six Commissioned Corps and civilian pharmacists participate in the Pharmacy Residency Program. See app. II for information on residency programs at tribally operated facilities. IHS officials said they have conducted webinars and career fairs in an attempt to connect with health professional students. For example, in 2016, IHS conducted two informational webinars to recruit Commissioned Corps applicants to facilities in the Great Plains area with critical clinical vacancies. According to IHS officials, approximately 60 applicants attended the two webinars, resulting in 15 nurse hires. In addition, Nashville area officials stated that the area office conducted a marketing campaign at the National Congress of American Indians Conference. Officials explained that the area office provided information about desirable aspects of living in the Nashville area and collected e-mail addresses and areas of interest from potential job candidates. IHS’s Office of Human Resources also partners with HRSA’s Bureau of Health Workforce by participating in nationwide virtual career fairs to promote the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment opportunities. IHS has also worked with the Office of the Surgeon General to increase the recruitment and retention of Commissioned Corps officers. In May 2017, the Office of the Surgeon General gave IHS priority access to new Commissioned Corps leads—meaning IHS has at least 30 days to make contact with potential applicants to the Commissioned Corps before other agencies have the opportunity to contact them. According to IHS officials, since being given priority access to Commissioned Corps leads, the agency has made 20 direct clinical care selections, of which 15 have entered on duty. In addition to its recruitment and retention strategies, IHS uses strategies to mitigate the negative effects of vacancies by helping to maintain patient access to services, and helping to reduce provider burnout when positions are vacant. Specifically, IHS provides telehealth services; implements alternative staffing models, including hiring nurse practitioners and physician assistants in lieu of physicians; temporarily assigns Commissioned Corps officers to alternate duty stations as needed; and contracts with temporary providers. IHS’s telehealth services include two agency-wide programs that provide teleophthalmology and telebehavioral health services. Teleophthalmology. The IHS Joslin Vision Network (IHS-JVN) Teleophthalmology Program provides annual diabetic eye exams to AI/AN patients in almost all IHS areas with federally operated facilities. According to IHS, patients’ retinal images are scanned locally and sent to a reading center where doctors interpret the images and report back. Officials told us the IHS-JVN program examined 22,000 patients in 2016. Telebehavioral health. The Telebehavioral Health Center of Excellence provides direct care services through video conferencing to patients at remote facilities from providers at IHS facilities that are able to provide the services. These services are provided in all IHS areas with federally operated facilities, and more than 5,800 patient visits occurred in 2016. Additionally, officials told us there are regional telebehavioral health programs, such as in the Oklahoma City area that, combined with the Telebehavioral Health Center of Excellence, saw over 10,000 patients in 2016. IHS officials stated that patients appreciate the telebehavioral services in their communities, because they are the only behavioral health services available in many communities. The IHS psychiatrist who provides services is located in Oklahoma City because, according to IHS officials, it is easier to recruit providers to a more urban location. In addition to these agency-wide telehealth programs, IHS officials identified multiple other local telehealth arrangements that facility staff have developed to help maintain patient access to medical services. For example, there is a diabetes consultant for the Portland area who conducts telenutrition services. There is also a teledermatology program for the Phoenix Area federal facilities operated out of the Phoenix Indian Medical Center. Additionally, several service units—including Pine Ridge Hospital, Rosebud Hospital, and the Sioux San Medical Center—have contracts for emergency department telehealth services. Figure 7 shows telehealth equipment in the Rosebud Hospital emergency department. Staff from multiple facilities told us they have implemented alternative staffing models to focus on hiring for non-physician practitioner positions because these positions are slightly easier to fill. For example, Northern Navajo Medical Center officials told us the facility, facing an emergency department physician shortage, hired physician assistants and nurse practitioners instead. These officials said they converted two physician positions into four physician assistant and nurse practitioner positions. In addition, Chinle officials stated that they added two physician assistants to the urgent care department due to complaints about patient wait times, and patient wait times have decreased as a result. Officials also mentioned dental therapists as an additional type of clinical professional who may be added to the Chinle Health Care Facility staffing model because the service unit has been unable to recruit and retain enough dentists to meet patient need. IHS officials stated that they have worked with the Office the Surgeon General to deploy Commissioned Corps officers, mainly to the Great Plains area, and have also coordinated voluntary temporary duty assignments of Commissioned Corps officers (within IHS and from other agencies) to temporarily fill staffing shortages or meet other mission- critical needs. IHS officials stated that Commissioned Corps officers may also be temporarily assigned to an IHS site to provide services, such as behavioral health support during a suicide cluster. IHS officials from 9 of the 10 geographic areas with federally operated facilities and all seven facilities in our review told us they regularly use temporary contract providers—such as through locum tenens contracts and contracts with university fellowship programs—to maintain patient access to care when positions are vacant. Locum tenens. Officials from the Kayenta Health Center said they contract with temporary providers to compensate for vacancies, and the facility contracts with about 9 providers who rotate to fill 3 vacant emergency department positions. Officials from the Portland area stated that they use temporary providers when there is a staffing shortage with providers. They explained that the Portland area has provider vacancies that have been open for years, and temporary providers fill these vacancies for an extended period of time, usually with a rotating series of providers. Chinle Health Care Facility officials said temporary providers, when of sufficiently high quality, have been recruited to join the permanent corps of civilian service staff. However, they told us locum tenens can cost between $50,000-$200,000 more annually than permanent physicians’ salaries, exclusive of benefits, depending on the specialties and hourly rates associated with the contracts. They said they are finding that increasingly higher hourly rates are needed to ensure a sufficient supply of high-quality temporary providers. IHS officials at all levels of the agency told us they prefer to hire permanent providers, rather than use locum tenens contracts. Facility officials explained that persistent turnover in temporary staff may jeopardize continuity of care. For example, Sioux San Medical Center officials expressed concern about the quality of the care provided by temporary contractors, as well as the consistency of the care provided because the contractors rotate frequently. IHS officials told us that many providers prefer to be on contract due to the higher compensation rates as a contractor, even when taking federal benefits into account. University physicians. IHS officials explained that area offices may also contract with university fellowship programs to provide visiting providers. For example, according to IHS, the Chinle Health Care Facility has entered into long-term contractual agreements with two academic fellowship programs—University of California-San Francisco Health Program and the University of Utah Global Health Fellowship. Officials told us these programs provide U.S. residency- trained, board certified physicians interested in global health to work 6-month assignments alternating with another fellow at an international site. In addition, IHS officials stated that the Navajo area office is collaborating with the University of California-San Francisco and its global health fellowship to assign global health fellows to a Navajo Area site for 6 months out of each year. The officials explained that 24 fellows were placed in Navajo-area facilities in 2017 at costs substantially lower than that of locum tenens contracts. According to IHS, the Great Plains area office has collaborated with the University of Washington’s global health fellowship program to assign global health fellows in Internal Medicine to Pine Ridge Hospital for 11- month placements. Agency-wide information on the extent to which facilities use these temporary providers, and the amount spent on them, is not readily available to IHS leadership. While IHS has agency-wide information on vacancies through the Capital Human Resource Management System, IHS delegates the acquisitions process for temporary provider contracts to the head of each area-level Contracting Office. Therefore, agency-wide information on the number of full-time equivalent employees that are temporary providers working at IHS facilities, as well as the cost of these providers, is not readily available. As discussed, officials we spoke with at IHS facilities told us that temporary providers can cost more depending on the specialties and hourly rates. Without agency-wide information on the extent to which such providers are used, IHS is not fully informed about facilities’ reliance and expenditures on temporary providers or their potential effect on patient care, which is inconsistent with federal internal control standards regarding the availability of relevant information to facilitate management decision making and performance monitoring. Specifically, federal internal controls standards state that agency management should obtain, process, and use quality information to make informed decisions and evaluate the agency’s performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks. IHS’s lack of agency-wide information on the costs and number of temporary providers used at its facilities impedes its ability to make decisions about how best to target its resources to address gaps in provider staffing and ensure that health services are available and accessible across IHS facilities. Maintaining a stable clinical workforce capable of providing quality and timely care is critical for IHS to ensure that comprehensive health services are available and accessible to American Indian/Alaska Native people. However, despite efforts to recruit and retain providers, IHS continues to face considerable challenges to overcome its long-standing struggle to fill sizeable provider vacancies, including geographic isolation and limited amenities. Although IHS is authorized to offer recruitment and retention incentives, such as loan repayments and subsidized housing, the demand for these incentives has been greater than the agency can meet due to resource constraints. However, more complete information on contract providers could help IHS officials make decisions on where to better target its limited resources to address gaps in provider staffing and ensure that health services are available and accessible to American Indian/Alaska Native people across IHS facilities. We are making the following recommendation to IHS: The Director of IHS should obtain, on an agency-wide basis, information on temporary provider contractors, including their associated cost and number of full-time equivalents, and use this information to inform decisions about resource allocation and provider staffing. (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for review and comment. We received written comments from HHS that are reprinted in appendix III. HHS concurred with our recommendation. In its comments, HHS stated that IHS plans to update its policies by December 2018 to include a centralized reporting mechanism requirement for all temporary contracts issued for providers. HHS also stated that, upon finalization of the policy, IHS will broadly incorporate and implement the reporting mechanism agency-wide and maintain it on an annual basis. HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. VA provided comments on a draft of this report in an email, stating that VA officials continue to work to improve recruitment and retention of providers at VHA to ensure that they have the correct number of providers with the appropriate skills. We are sending copies of this report to HHS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov/. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or farbj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Provider Vacancies with the Indian Health Service (IHS) IHS data collected in November 2017, included the number of positions and vacancies for several types of providers, including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants. Most of these positions are in the 8 of 12 IHS areas in which IHS has substantial direct care responsibilities. Vacancies for nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, dentists, pharmacists, and physician assistants are provided in this appendix. Nurse practitioners. Nationwide, 97 of 303 positions were vacant in November 2017, and vacancy rates in the 8 areas in which IHS has substantial direct care responsibilities ranged from 12 percent in the Oklahoma City area to 47 percent in the Albuquerque area. (See fig. 8) Certified nurse midwives. Nationwide, 8 of 55 positions were vacant in November 2017. See table 1. Dentists. Nationwide, 81 of 306 positions were vacant in November 2017 and vacancy rates in the 8 areas in which IHS has substantial direct care responsibilities ranged from 14 percent in the Phoenix area to 39 percent in the Bemidji area. (See fig. 9.) Pharmacists. Nationwide, 80 of 637 positions were vacant in November 2017 and vacancy rates in the 8 areas in which IHS has substantial direct care responsibilities ranged from 3 percent in the Bemidji area to 17 percent in the Albuquerque area. (See fig. 10.) Physician assistants. Nationwide, 37 of 125 positions were vacant in November 2017. See table 2. Tribal officials from the Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation described their use of strategies to address vacancies, which were very similar to strategies used by the Indian Health Service (IHS). Like the IHS, one tribe uses the availability of housing units near its medical facility as a recruitment tool for health care providers. Both tribes that described their strategies to recruit and retain providers told us they use their physician residency program in Family Medicine as a recruitment tool. Availability of housing units near the medical facility. Tribal officials from the Choctaw Nation told us the tribe uses housing units—58 housing units that range from studio apartments to multi- room houses—as a recruitment strategy for providers. The provider housing units are occupied by physicians, as well as by physician residents who need housing during their residency or for medical students doing clinical rotations through the facility. According to tribal officials, a factor they considered in making housing units available for providers was the location of its hospital in a rural area of Oklahoma, in a town with a population of about 1,000, which lacks sufficient housing. In September 2017, tribal officials told us all the available housing units were occupied, and the tribe was in the process of constructing at least two 4-bedroom houses. See fig. 11 for photos of a completed multi-room house and one under construction. Offering the housing units to provider staff is also part of the tribe’s overall strategy of offering quality-of-life benefits to attract and retain providers. Implementing Accredited Physician Residency Programs. Tribal officials we interviewed noted that they developed physician training programs—specifically graduate medical education, commonly known as residency training—which they use as an important recruitment tool for physicians. One tribe has implemented its Family Medicine residency program, while the other tribe intends for its Family Medicine residency program to be operational in July 2018. Both residency programs are accredited by the American Osteopathic Association, in addition to the American College of Osteopathic Family Practice for one tribe and the American Council for Graduate Medical Education for the other tribe. One program is accredited for 3 resident physicians per year for a total of 9 physician residents at a time, while the other program is accredited for 4 resident physicians per year. We previously found that physicians may practice in geographic areas similar to those where they complete their residency training. Tribal officials with the implemented Family Medicine residency program told us it is successful in that they hired 7 of the 9 residents who completed the residency program. There is also a retention benefit—current providers have the opportunity to stay up-to-date on the latest medical treatment methods by serving as either mentors or as faculty for the residents. In addition to the contact named above, Kathleen M. King (Director), Ann Tynan (Assistant Director), Kelly DeMots (Assistant Director/Analyst-in- Charge), Sam Amrhein, Kristen Anderson, Muriel Brown, Kaitlin Farquharson, Peter Mann-King, Maria Ralenkotter, Lisa Rogers, and Jennifer Whitworth made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["IHS is charged with providing health care to AI/AN people who are members or descendants of 573 tribes. According to IHS, AI/AN people born today have a life expectancy that is 5.5 years less than all races in the United States, and they die at higher rates than other Americans from preventable causes. The ability to recruit and retain a stable clinical workforce capable of providing quality and timely care is critical for IHS. GAO was asked to review provider vacancies at IHS. This report examines (1) IHS provider vacancies and challenges filling them; (2) strategies IHS has used to recruit and retain providers; and (3) strategies IHS has used to mitigate the negative effects of provider vacancies. GAO reviewed IHS human resources data for the provider positions that the agency tracks. GAO also reviewed policies, federal internal control standards, and legal authorities related to providers in federally operated IHS facilities. GAO interviewed IHS officials at the headquarters and area level and at selected facilities. GAO selected facilities based on variation in their number of direct care outpatient visits and inpatient hospital beds in 2014. Indian Health Service (IHS) data show sizeable vacancy rates for clinical care providers in the eight IHS geographic areas where the agency provides substantial direct care to American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. The overall vacancy rate for providers—physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse midwives, physician assistants, dentists, and pharmacists—was 25 percent, ranging from 13 to 31 percent across the areas. IHS officials told GAO that challenges to filling these vacancies include the rural location of many IHS facilities and insufficient housing for providers. Officials said long-standing vacancies have a negative effect on patient access, quality of care, and employee morale. IHS uses multiple strategies to recruit and retain providers, including offering increased salaries for certain positions, but it still faces challenges matching local market salaries. IHS also offers other financial incentives, and has made some housing available when possible. In addition, IHS uses strategies, such as contracting with temporary providers, to maintain patient access to services and reduce provider burnout. Officials said these temporary providers are more costly than salaried employees and can interrupt patients' continuity of care. However, IHS lacks agency-wide information on the costs and number of temporary providers used at its facilities, which impedes IHS officials' ability to target its resources to address gaps in provider staffing and ensure access to health services across IHS facilities. GAO recommends that IHS obtain, on an agency-wide basis, information on temporary provider contractors, including their associated cost and number of full-time equivalents, and use this information to inform decisions about resource allocation and provider staffing. IHS concurred with GAO's recommendation."], "length": 6957, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "0f6c000c1653bd9ad797ec6f7ab49051531cf0181ac1c572"}
{"input": "", "context": "The federal government has recognized 573 Indian tribes as distinct, independent political communities with tribal sovereignty. There are different categories of tribal lands, with differing implications with respect to ownership and administration. Reservations are defined geographic areas with established boundaries recognized by the United States. Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and location. For example, those lands smallest in size are less than one square mile, and the largest, the Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West Virginia). Tribal land locations can range from extremely remote, rural locations to urban areas. Figure 1 shows tribal lands in the United States according to the 2010 Census. The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet. Broadband service may be “fixed”—that is, providing service to a single location, such as a customer’s home—or “mobile,” that is, providing service wherever a customer has access to a mobile wireless network, including while on the move, through a mobile device, such as a smartphone. Fixed and mobile broadband providers deploy and maintain infrastructure to connect consumers to the Internet. Providers offer fixed Internet service through a number of technologies, such as copper phone lines, fiber-optic lines, coaxial cables, wireless antennas, satellites, or a mix of technologies (see fig. 2). To install fixed or wireless infrastructure, providers must obtain permits from government entities with jurisdiction over the land or permission from public utilities to deploy infrastructure on existing utility poles. The federal government has emphasized the importance of ensuring Americans have access to broadband, and a number of agencies, including FCC, currently provide funding to subsidize broadband deployment in areas in which the return on investment has not attracted private investment. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifies that consumers in “rural, insular, and high-cost areas” should have access to telecommunication services and rates that are “reasonably comparable” to consumers in urban areas. To achieve this goal, FCC administers the High-Cost program, which provides subsidies to providers of phone service in rural, insular, and other remote areas. In 2011, FCC launched a series of reforms to its High-Cost program, including adding support for broadband services, and created the Connect America Fund, which provides subsidies to fixed and mobile providers of telecommunications and broadband services in rural, insular, and other remote areas where the costs of providing service is high. To be eligible for Universal Service Fund support from FCC, a provider must be designated an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier by the appropriate state or by FCC and must meet certain service obligations. The Connect America Fund has distributed approximately $4.5 billion per year, and has separate funding mechanisms targeted to specific goals. For example, there are funds for fixed-phone and broadband service and funds for mobile service, including a Tribal Mobility Fund (Phase 1) that awarded nearly $50 million in 2014 for the provision of 3G and 4G service to unserved tribal areas. In addition to FCC, a number of other agencies provide funding for broadband deployment in unserved or underserved areas. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Community Connect Program, which provides grants to rural communities to provide high- speed Internet service to unserved areas. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) mandated the development of a nationwide map of broadband availability. To implement the act, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA)—an agency within the Department of Commerce—established a grant program to enable U.S. states and territories to collect state-level broadband mapping data. NTIA used these data to launch the National Broadband Map (www.broadbandmap.gov) in February 2011. As the funding for the NTIA’s program came to an end in 2014, NTIA stopped collecting data to update the map and, according to FCC officials, created a memorandum of understanding with FCC through which FCC agreed to maintain public access to the last version of the map. FCC issued rules in 2013 to begin collecting broadband deployment data, in addition to the broadband subscription data it had collected from providers since 2000. FCC sought, but did not receive, $3 million to update the National Broadband Map in its fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 budgets. In 2018, Congress directed FCC to develop a report by March 23, 2019, evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands (to include an assessment of areas that have adequate broadband coverage, as well as an assessment of unserved areas), and to complete a proceeding to address unserved areas by September 23, 2020. Currently, FCC requires broadband providers to report on their broadband deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477). Fixed broadband providers submit a list of the census blocks in which their broadband service is available, and mobile providers submit “shapefiles”—a geospatial depiction of the coverage area, which FCC refers to as “polygons”—of their coverage areas. FCC uses providers’ 477 data to develop a statutorily mandated annual report on advanced telecommunications capability. In addition, in 2016, FCC began publishing its own maps of broadband deployment, using the information from providers’ Form 477 filings. In February 2018, FCC launched an updated map of fixed broadband deployment (https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/). This map allows users to search for broadband deployment by address and provides summary-level statistics regarding broadband deployment in specific tribal lands (see fig. 3). According to FCC officials, this new map format will support more frequent data updates. FCC also provides national maps of mobile LTE coverage; these maps do not allow users to access data at the same level of granularity as the maps of fixed broadband (see fig. 4). FCC collects and uses data that capture broadband availability to measure broadband access on tribal lands, leading to overstatements of broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC’s method of collecting mobile and fixed broadband data from providers (the Form 477) does not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands because it (1) captures nationwide broadband availability data— areas where providers may have broadband infrastructure—but does so in a way that leads to overstatements of availability, and (2) does not capture information on factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access on tribal lands, such as affordability, service quality, and denials of service. Nonetheless, FCC uses its Form 477 broadband availability data in annual broadband deployment reports to measure the percentage of Americans living on tribal lands with or without access to broadband, and to measure progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband. By using broadband availability data to measure broadband access on tribal lands, FCC overstates broadband access on tribal lands. FCC’s Form 477, its primary method of collecting nationwide broadband data, collects information on broadband availability, which identifies where providers have broadband infrastructure and could potentially provide broadband services but not where consumers can actually access those services. Moreover, the Form 477’s mobile broadband data- collection methods are not standardized, and its fixed broadband data- collection methods are not sufficiently granular to provide information about broadband availability on tribal lands. FCC’s Form 477 requires mobile broadband providers to report their coverage areas by submitting geospatial data depicting the areas in which consumers could expect to receive the minimum advertised speed. FCC has previously noted the importance of collecting nationally standardized, uniform broadband data from providers to assess broadband availability and allow for easy comparison across providers. However, the Form 477 does not require that providers use a standardized method with defined technical parameters (such as signal strength, or amount of interference) when determining their coverage area, resulting in data that cannot be meaningfully compared across providers, according to FCC. To map their coverage areas, providers may use predictive models based on different measurement methods and a variety of factors known to affect mobile broadband service such as topography, tree cover, and buildings, among other factors. Providers and tribal stakeholders have expressed concern with the accuracy of FCC’s mobile broadband data, and FCC has acknowledged concerns that the lack of a standardized method resulted in data that were unreliable for the purposes of determining mobile broadband coverage for specific geographic areas, such as tribal lands. About half of the tribal government representatives we interviewed told us that they believe FCC’s data overstate mobile LTE broadband availability on their lands. For example, a few representatives expressed concerns with the accuracy of the mobile data in areas with varied terrain, such as mountains and valleys. In comments to FCC, broadband providers have also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the mobile coverage data generated by the Form 477 for the purposes of identifying areas eligible for funding through FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II program, which provides federal funding to increase mobile broadband services in unserved areas. In 2017, in response to such concerns, FCC reversed its prior decision to use the Form 477 data to identify specific areas eligible for federal funding through the Mobility Fund Phase II program. Instead, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection, for which it required providers to measure their coverage based on a common set of standards, in order to better identify unserved areas that would be presumptively eligible for funding. FCC plans to allow parties, including tribal governments, to challenge the data where they believe the data overstate mobile broadband coverage through August, 2018. Additionally, in an August 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC requested comment on potential changes to modernize its Form 477 data collection, including whether it should require all providers to use a standardized method when submitting mobile coverage data on the form. FCC officials told us that they do not have a timeline for the development of a final rule, and as of August 2018, FCC had not yet issued a final rule on modernizing the Form 477. The Form 477 collects fixed broadband data that are not sufficiently granular to accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to submit a list of census blocks where service is available on the Form 477. FCC defines “available” as whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or without an extraordinary commitment of resources— provide service to at least one end-user premises in a census block. Thus, in its annual reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC considers an entire block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or could offer, service to at least one household in the census block. FCC does not define a typical service interval or an extraordinary commitment of resources in its Form 477 instructions. However, FCC officials stated that providers should not report service in areas in which major construction would be required to provide service. A few providers told us that the lack of clear guidance from FCC regarding how to determine where broadband is available has led different providers to interpret the Form 477 directions in different ways, which can affect the accuracy and consistency of reporting from provider to provider. For example, in a filing with FCC, one provider stated that it had misapplied the definition of “available” and, as a result, overstated the availability of its services by almost 3,000 census blocks. As shown in figure 5, FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband availability on tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as served if only one location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to report availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure connecting homes to their networks if the providers determine they could offer service to at least one household. Almost all the providers and private companies, and most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we spoke with told us that due to these issues, FCC’s definition of availability results in data that overstate broadband availability. According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed broadband availability where they could provide service within a “typical service interval” and without “an extraordinary commitment of resources” in order to: (1) ensure that it captures instances in which a provider has a network nearby but has not installed the last connection to the homes, and (2) identify where service is connected to homes, but homes have not subscribed. FCC officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. In 2013, FCC considered collecting more granular nationwide data on broadband deployment but decided against collecting these data because it determined that the burden would outweigh the benefit. However, FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that FCC’s approach leads to overstatements of availability. For example, in its 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data collection, FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where it could provide service, it is impossible to tell whether the provider would be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block it lists as served. According to FCC, this limits the value of the data to inform FCC policies. In addition, several providers and tribal stakeholders we interviewed said that some “digital subscriber line” (DSL) and fixed wireless providers may overstate their service areas on the Form 477 because they may not take into account technological or terrain limitations that would affect their ability to actually provide service. FCC has also recognized that by measuring availability at the census block level, not every person will have access to broadband in a block that the data show as served, and FCC has noted that in rural areas, such as tribal lands, census blocks can be large and providers may only deploy service to a portion of the census block. A few representatives for tribal governments and organizations noted that the use of census blocks may uniquely overstate broadband availability on tribal lands when census blocks contain both tribal and non-tribal areas, because availability in the non-tribal portion of the block can result in the tribal area of the census block also being counted as served. FCC is considering requiring providers to report whether they are willing and able to serve additional customers in a census block and collecting sub-census block data in its 2017 proposed rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477. About one-third of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were not in favor of FCC collecting these more granular data on the Form 477, stating that the data would be less accurate and more burdensome for providers to collect and report, among other reasons, and questioned whether more detailed information on nationwide broadband availability is necessary. We heard similar concerns from a few of the providers and trade associations we interviewed. However, about one- third of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were in favor of collecting more granular data, stating that such data would be more useful for policymakers and more accurate. Additionally, a few tribally owned and non-tribal providers we interviewed told us that providers already maintain data for business purposes that would allow them to report more granular information on broadband availability. One stakeholder we spoke with pointed out that, as the federal government and states work to ensure the last remaining unserved areas—rural, low- population density areas including tribal lands—have service, sub- census-block-level data are needed to ensure that governments are making wise and accurate investments. FCC does not collect information on several factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. FCC and tribal stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by factors such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services being offered, and the extent to which providers deny service to those who request it. By collecting and using data on factors that can affect broadband access, FCC would have more complete information on the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands have access to broadband Internet services. Affordability: FCC has noted that affordability of broadband services can affect broadband access but does not collect information on the cost of broadband service on tribal lands on the Form 477. For example, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC cited affordable access to robust broadband service as a long-term goal, and in its Strategic Plan 2018–2022, FCC acknowledged that affordability is an important factor affecting broadband access and a key driver of the digital divide. Moreover, most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we spoke to told us that the affordability of broadband services is an important factor for understanding whether or not people on tribal lands could realistically access broadband services. Tribal government officials from one tribe we spoke with told us that residents on their lands cannot access broadband because it is too costly. For example, a provider that advertises services on the tribe’s land charges $130 per month for broadband services, approximately one-and-a-half times the average rate providers charge for comparable services in urban areas, according to FCC (see fig. 6). In the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC acknowledged that affordability can influence a consumer’s decision on whether to purchase broadband, but FCC did not consider cost in its assessment of broadband access on tribal lands, stating that pricing does not go to the congressional requirement to assess deployment and availability in conducting its inquiry as required by Congress under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act and also citing a lack of reliable comprehensive data on this issue. In addition, FCC officials we interviewed acknowledged that while broadband service may be technically available, it may be prohibitively expensive for some, which may make availability alone an incomplete indicator of broadband access. Quality of Service: In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress recognized the importance of service quality by defining advanced telecommunications capability as any technology that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications. In keeping with this legislation, FCC has consistently set thresholds for speeds that qualify as broadband services and has stated that “latency” and consistency of service figure prominently into whether a broadband service is able to provide advanced capabilities and thus whether users can access high-quality telecommunications. Likewise, almost all of the representatives for tribal governments or organizations we interviewed told us that quality of service is a key component of access to broadband and that routine outages, slow speeds, and high latency keep people on tribal lands from consistently accessing the Internet. Most tribal stakeholders and a few providers we interviewed told us that factors such as terrain, weather, and type of technology can all affect the quality of service an end user receives and, ultimately, the subscribers’ ability to access the Internet (see fig. 7). For example, some representatives of tribal governments and organizations told us issues like oversubscription— when a provider signs up more customers than its equipment can handle—and outdated or limited infrastructure result in low-quality services that cannot support advanced and, in some cases, basic functions. Though FCC uses the Form 477 to collect some data on advertised speeds from providers, FCC does not collect data on actual speeds, service outages, and latency on the form. In its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC stated that it did not consider FCC data on actual speed, latency, or consistency of service when evaluating broadband access due to the lack of appropriate data. FCC noted that the lack of Form 477 data on actual speeds in particular constrained evaluation of mobile broadband access. Service Denials: FCC has recognized that information on denials of service is pertinent to understanding actual broadband access but does not collect data on service denials in the Form 477. Specifically, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC recommended that FCC collect data to determine whether broadband service is being denied to potential residential customers based on the income of the residents in a particular geographic area. Some representatives of the tribal governments or organizations told us that that they were aware of a provider denying service to residents of tribal lands, despite the provider reporting broadband availability on at least a portion of those lands, according to our analysis of the Form 477 data. These representatives told us that they believed service was denied because of disputes with the tribal government, low demand for service, or the high costs of extending services to the home on tribal lands. Some representatives of tribal governments or organizations we spoke with also told us that providers may have denied service because their equipment was at capacity and could not accommodate new users (see fig. 8). For example, on three of the tribal lands we visited, we observed fiber optic cable located close to government and residential structures that did not have broadband access via fiber. According to tribal government officials, despite the physical proximity of the fiber optic cable, the tribal government and residents could not access it because the provider was not offering service or was unwilling or unable to build to the structures. A few providers we interviewed stated that they may not provide services to individuals who request them because of high-costs, administrative barriers, or technical limitations. However, FCC does not collect data on service denials on the Form 477. In its Strategic Plan 2018–2022 and the National Broadband Plan, FCC identified increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband as a long-term, strategic goal. Congress has similarly directed FCC to develop policies and programs aimed at increasing access to affordable broadband in all regions of the United States, including tribal lands, and required FCC to report annually on its progress. According to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), agencies should use accurate and reliable data to measure progress toward achieving their goals. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agencies should use quality information— information that is complete, appropriate, and reliable—to inform decision-making processes and evaluate the agency’s performance in achieving goals. According to these standards, agencies should also communicate quality information externally to achieve the agency’s goals. However, FCC has used its Form 477 data, which do not accurately or completely measure broadband access on tribal lands, as its primary source to evaluate progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing broadband access and to develop maps and reports intended to depict broadband access on tribal lands. For example, in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC found that 64.6 percent of Americans residing on tribal lands have access to fixed broadband services. By using these data, FCC has overstated the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can actually access broadband Internet services and FCC’s progress toward increasing broadband access. As a result, the digital divide may appear less significant as a national challenge, and FCC and tribal stakeholders working to target broadband funding to unserved or underserved tribal lands will be limited in their ability to make informed decisions. This increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access. Some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband networks and obtain federal broadband funding, and most of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed identified a pressing need for accurate data on the gaps in broadband access on tribal lands in order to ensure that tribes can qualify for federal funding and to effectively target the areas that need it most. For example, representatives for one tribal government that is providing broadband services said the government will not be able to use a federal grant to build broadband infrastructure in areas of their reservation that lack access, because the Form 477 data overstate actual access on the tribe’s land. As more than three quarters of the tribal governments we spoke to are working to provide broadband services on their lands in some capacity, overstating broadband access on tribal lands could affect the ability of a number of tribes to access federal funding to increase broadband access on their lands. As previously discussed, FCC is considering proposals to modify its Form 477 data collection as part of a 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but FCC officials told us that the Commission does not have a timeline for issuance of a final rule. While some of FCC’s proposals could help address some of the limitations identified above by, for example, collecting more granular nationwide broadband availability data, FCC has not addressed specifically the collection of more accurate and complete data on broadband access for tribal lands in this proceeding. FCC has identified the need to improve broadband data for tribal lands in particular, and as previously noted, in 2018 Congress directed FCC to develop a report evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands and initiate a proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report. FCC officials told us that FCC has not determined how it will address this requirement, but it is currently considering its options, including potentially addressing the requirement as part of its ongoing proposed rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data collection. An evaluation of broadband coverage on tribal lands that relies on the current Form 477 data would be subject to the limitations described above, including the overstatement of broadband access on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC has demonstrated that it is possible in some circumstances to collect more granular data when such data collection is targeted to a specific need or area. For example, in 2017 FCC began requiring certain providers that receive funding through the Connect America Fund to report the latitude and longitude of locations where broadband is available, and FCC has noted that these more granular data are extremely useful to the Commission, especially for rural areas where census blocks can be quite large. A few large providers and trade associations similarly stated in public comments on FCC’s proposed rulemaking to modernize the Form 477 process that FCC should target its collection of more granular broadband data to areas where the data are most likely to be overstated—specifically, large, rural census blocks with low population densities, such as those on tribal lands. Additionally, as discussed above, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection for Mobility Fund II to ensure that the mobile broadband data it collected would be reliable for the intended use. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be able to better identify tribal areas without access to broadband and to target federal broadband funding to the tribal areas most in need. FCC uses data submitted by broadband providers via the Form 477 process to develop maps and datasets depicting broadband services nationwide, and in specific locations, such as tribal lands, but does not have a formal process to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the broadband data. FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for the federal government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to ensure that any information collected is accurate and useful. It also noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review mapping data about tribal lands and offer supplemental data or corrections. Similarly, federal internal control standards note the need for federal agencies to communicate with external entities, such as tribal governments, and to enable these entities to provide quality information to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives. FCC officials told us that they address questions and concerns regarding provider coverage claims submitted to the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, which will work with tribal governments to help them identify inaccurate broadband data for tribal lands, and share tribal questions and concerns with the appropriate FCC bureaus. However, FCC does not have a formal process for tribes (or other governmental entities) to provide input to ensure that the broadband data FCC collects through the 477 process, or the resulting maps that FCC creates to depict broadband on tribal lands, are accurate. Similarly, FCC does not use other methods to verify provider-submitted Form 477 data on tribal lands against other sources of information, such as on-site tests or data collected by other agencies. When discussing the lack of a formal process for tribal representatives or other governmental entities to provide feedback on the accuracy of the 477 broadband data, FCC officials noted that if consumers and local officials have information on individual locations that lack broadband service, such information does not indicate that the entire census block lacks broadband service. Additionally, FCC officials noted that providers attest to the accuracy of the data and that FCC staff validate the data by conducting internal checks to identify possible errors, such as unlikely changes in a providers’ coverage area, and may follow-up with a provider to discuss such changes. However, these checks do not include soliciting input from tribes. About half of the tribal stakeholders we spoke to raised concerns that FCC’s broadband deployment data rely solely on unverified information submitted by providers. Additionally, most tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us that consistent with the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan, FCC should work directly with tribes to obtain information from them to improve the accuracy of its broadband deployment data for tribal lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could work with tribes on this issue, including: conducting on-site visits with tribal stakeholders to observe the extent to which broadband infrastructure and services are present; conducting outreach and technical assistance for tribal stakeholders to raise awareness and use of FCC’s broadband data; and providing opportunities for the tribes to collect their own data or submit feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data. FCC’s National Broadband Plan notes the importance of supporting tribal efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues, and federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should obtain quality information from external entities. Officials we interviewed in FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy told us that they provide some outreach and technical assistance to tribal officials at regional and national workshops, and FCC officials stated that they conducted specific outreach to tribal entities regarding the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process, while, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to stated that they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding maps, or raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform tribes about the data. Some tribal stakeholders stated that if FCC were to solicit tribal input as part of its verification of the broadband data and maps, technical training and assistance could help tribes use and provide feedback on the data, or improve the collection and submission of their own data. A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes can face difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability data. For example, in 2013, prior to the auction that distributed Tribal Mobility Fund Phase 1 support, FCC allowed interested parties to challenge FCC’s preliminary determinations regarding which census blocks lacked 3G or better service and would be eligible for support in the auctions. However, all of the tribal entities that challenged the accuracy of FCC’s data were unsuccessful in increasing the number of eligible areas. According to FCC officials, the tribal entities did not provide sufficient or sufficiently verifiable information to support their challenges. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise to help the tribe meet FCC’s requirements. Because FCC lacks a formal process to obtain tribal input on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important source of information regarding areas in which the data may overstate broadband service on tribal lands. Tribal stakeholders are able to provide a first-hand perspective on the extent to which service is available within their lands and the extent to which factors like affordability, service quality, and service denials affect residents’ ability to access broadband. FCC plans to award nearly $2 billion in support from the Connect America Fund to areas that it has identified as lacking broadband, including tribal lands. Any inaccuracies in its broadband data could affect FCC’s funding decisions and the ability of tribal lands to access broadband in the future. Additionally, in its 2017 report on tribal infrastructure, the National Congress of American Indians stressed the importance of including tribal governments in a leadership role with respect to collecting data on local infrastructure needs. Specifically, it stressed the need for the federal government to invest in tribal data systems and researchers to generate useful, locally specific data that can inform the development and implementation of infrastructure development projects and assess the effectiveness of those projects over time. By establishing a process to obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share locally specific information on broadband access, which would in turn improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for tribal lands. The success of such an effort may rely on the tribes’ knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process. When discussing the need to improve data regarding broadband on tribal lands, FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC develop a process for tribes to receive information from providers about broadband services on tribal lands. In 2011, FCC required that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (providers receiving Universal Service Funds from FCC) serving tribal lands meaningfully engage with tribes regarding communications services (including broadband). Specifically, the providers must file an annual report documenting that this engagement included a discussion of, among other things, a needs assessment and deployment planning for communications services, including broadband. FCC’s 2012 guidance on fulfilling the engagement obligations, which FCC officials confirmed is still in effect, noted that the stated goal of the engagement requirement was to benefit tribal government leaders, providers, and consumers by fostering a dialogue between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved services on tribal lands. The guidance further noted that the tribal engagement process “cannot be viewed as simply another ‘check the box’ requirement by either party,” and states that a provider should “demonstrate repeated good faith efforts to meaningfully engage with the tribal government.” Finally, FCC noted in its 2012 guidance that the guidance would evolve over time based on the feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers and that FCC would develop further guidance and best practices. This approach is consistent with federal internal control standards, which call for agencies to communicate with, and obtain quality information from, external parties. About half of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from providers regarding broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands, a key part of the provider engagement process, according to FCC’s guidance. For example, a representative from one tribe stated that a provider declined his requests to meet more than once a year to discuss the provider’s deployment of broadband services on the tribe’s land. A representative from another tribal government stated that some providers are very focused and transparent about their broadband plans and work with the tribe, while other providers treat tribal engagement as a “box to check” and send the tribe broadband deployment information that is not useful because it is redacted. Similarly, some tribal stakeholders stated that providers heavily redacted deployment information (which providers may consider proprietary) or required the tribe sign non-disclosure agreements to access deployment data. According to one tribal stakeholder, these non-disclosure agreements could possibly require tribes to waive tribal sovereign immunity in order to view the data. Some of the industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that they attempt to engage with tribes but the level of responsiveness from tribes varies. For example, some stakeholders stated that they send letters and do not hear back from tribes. One stakeholder stated that they make repeated attempts to contact tribes when they do not hear back after their initial contact, while another stated that a provider meets regularly with some tribes. Although FCC stated in its 2012 guidance that it would update the tribal engagement guidance and develop best practices based on feedback from tribal governments and broadband providers, it has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback from providers and tribal governments to determine whether its guidance is enabling meaningful tribal engagement. Additionally, FCC has not updated the guidance or issued best practices. Thus, FCC has limited information regarding whether its tribal engagement requirement is fulfilling its intended purpose. FCC officials we interviewed said that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) provided information and, in some cases, held training sessions about the tribal engagement obligation during workshops with tribal representatives, and encouraged representatives to contact ONAP with any concerns. ONAP officials also noted that they handle complaints from tribes regarding a lack of provider engagement and reach out to providers to address tribal concerns. ONAP officials stated that they have had internal discussions about whether the guidance is clear or needs revision, but this has not gone beyond internal discussions. A few of the tribal stakeholders provided examples of the benefits of providers engaging with tribes to ensure tribal representatives have access to information regarding broadband availability on their lands. For example, one representative stated that this information could help the tribes plan deployments by focusing on areas that they know the provider does not plan to serve. Another representative stated that tribal engagement could help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband maps. By obtaining feedback from both tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance to determine whether changes are needed, FCC would be better positioned to ensure that tribal governments and providers are sharing information in a manner that will lead to improved services on tribal lands. FCC has collected data and developed maps and reports depicting broadband on tribal lands and has noted the lower levels of broadband access on tribal lands, in comparison to other areas. However, limitations in FCC’s existing process for collecting and reporting broadband data have led FCC to overstate broadband access on tribal lands. By taking steps to address these limitations and to collect data that more accurately and completely depict broadband access on tribal lands, FCC would have greater assurance that it is making progress on reducing the digital divide on tribal lands and targeting broadband funding to tribal lands most in need. Without taking these steps, FCC increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access. Compounding the limitations in FCC’s data collection process is FCC’s lack of a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data for tribal lands. By developing a process to solicit tribal input and ensuring that tribes know about the process and are equipped with the technical skills and abilities necessary to provide this information, FCC would be better able to ensure the accuracy of its broadband data for tribal lands. Moreover, FCC would be able to obtain firsthand, locally specific information on broadband access that could inform FCC’s policies and funding decisions and help FCC achieve its goal of increasing broadband access for all Americans, including those living on tribal lands. Finally, by obtaining feedback from providers and tribal stakeholders on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance, FCC would be better positioned to assess whether its guidance is helping providers meet requirements and ultimately whether providers’ engagement is fulling its intended purpose of fostering a dialogue between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved services on tribal lands. We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should develop and implement methods—such as a targeted data collection—for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. (Recommendation 1) The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process. (Recommendation 2) The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC’s 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC needs to clarify the agency’s tribal engagement statement. (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In written comments provided by FCC (reproduced in appendix III), FCC agreed with our findings and recommendations. In its written comments, FCC described efforts, some of which are already under way, that it felt would address each recommendation and stated its intent to build upon those efforts. For example, FCC explained that it is exploring methods to collect more granular broadband deployment data and noted the need to balance the burden on Form 477 filers. FCC also noted that it is starting work to address a statutorily-required evaluation of broadband coverage on certain tribal lands. We agree that increasing the granularity of deployment data is helpful in addressing data accuracy issues, but we also note that it is important to collect data related to factors that affect broadband access on tribal lands. FCC also described informal efforts to collect tribal feedback on providers’ broadband data and stated it would explore options for a formal process to collect feedback. Regarding our recommendation related to providers’ engagement efforts, FCC outlined its existing methods by which tribal stakeholders can provide feedback on providers’ engagement efforts and agreed that seeking additional feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers would be desirable. We agree that improving feedback in these ways could help FCC determine whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement statement. FCC also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: List of Interviewees Representatives from tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (OK) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (MN) Fort Belknap Indian Community (MT) Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ) Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ) Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (WA) Karuk Tribe (CA) Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (MN) Makah Tribe (WA) Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (AZ, NM, UT) Nez Perce Tribe (ID) Osage Nation (OK) Pueblo of Acoma (NM) Pueblo of Pojoaque (NM) Pueblo of San Ildefonso (NM) Taos Pueblo (NM) Red Spectrum Communications (Coeur d’Alene Tribe (ID)) Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Networks, LLC (NY) San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. (AZ) Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association - Tribal Digital Village Network (CA) Spokane Tribe of Indians and Spokane Tribe Telecom Exchange (WA) Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (ND, SD) Warm Springs Telecommunications Co. (OR) Yurok Tribe and Yurok Connect (CA) Representatives from tribal associations/consortiums that include tribes Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Middle Rio Grande Pueblo Consortium National Congress of American Indians Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA) REDINet Representatives from companies/academic groups that work with tribes AMERIND Risk Arizona State University, American Indian Policy Institute and School of Public Affairs Turtle Island Communications Representatives from providers/trade associations (non-tribally owned) AT&T Representatives from companies that collect broadband data Alexicon Connected Nation Government Agencies (non-tribal) Census Bureau U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration Minnesota Office of Broadband Development One broadband provider we interviewed did not want to be included in this appendix. This report discusses the extent to which: (1) the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands. To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016 fixed and mobile broadband availability data—the most recent data at the time of our review—to identify the speeds, technologies, and availability providers reported for federally recognized tribal lands. Providers currently report this information to FCC by filing a “Form 477,” twice a year. We also used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks completely or partially on tribal lands. To assess the reliability of FCC’s data and 2010 U.S. Census data, we reviewed a previous GAO reliability assessment, and for FCC’s data we conducted electronic testing and analysis of the data, reviewed FCC guidance and documentation, and interviewed FCC officials. Based on the results of our analysis, we determined the data to be reliable for our purposes, which were: (1) to inform our selection of tribal governments and providers for interviews and visits, as described below, and (2) to develop maps depicting fixed and mobile broadband availability for the nine tribal lands we selected for visits, in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the data. Specifically, we mapped; fixed broadband data according to speed and technology, and mobile data for long-term evolution (LTE) services by provider for each tribal land. We used those maps during our visits to discuss the accuracy of the data with representatives for each tribal government or tribally owned provider. Though we analyzed all up and download speeds that providers reported in the Form 477, for the purposes of this report we defined “broadband” as fixed Internet service reaching at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, in accordance with FCC’s advanced telecommunications capability benchmark in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. We also report on the availability of mobile broadband, which, for the purposes of this report, does not have a speed threshold and refers to long-term evolution (LTE) services. To address both objectives and obtain tribal government representatives’ feedback on the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for their lands, we interviewed representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. We considered a range of factors when we selected tribal governments and tribally owned providers for interviews, including our analysis of Form 477 data, recommendations from tribal, industry, or government stakeholders regarding tribal and non- tribal representatives familiar with broadband data issues, and demographic and geographic characteristics, among others. For example, we considered demographic characteristics such as unemployment rate from the 2011– 2015 American Community Survey data, and geographic characteristics such as rurality from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes data. The tribes included in our review vary with respect to location, level of broadband availability according to FCC, land mass, and population size and density. The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six tribal organizations and four stakeholders who work with tribes on broadband issues. For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 35 entities representing tribal stakeholders we interviewed: 3 to 7 is defined as “a few;” 8 to 15 is described as “some;” 16 to 20 is described as “about half;” 21 to 27 is described as “most;” and 28 to 34 is described as “almost all.” A full list of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed can be found in appendix I. Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments submitted by providers and industry associations in FCC’s ongoing 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program. We also interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and mobile broadband providers and three industry associations to understand providers’ views on the Form 477 and how providers interact with tribal governments. When selecting providers for interviews, we included providers that reported serving the lands of tribal governments we interviewed and selected providers that varied in the percentage of tribal lands they reported serving. The providers we interviewed represent large, nationwide carriers as well as small, local carriers, and offer broadband via a variety of technologies, including fiber optics, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and mobile LTE. The results of our interviews with providers are not generalizable to all broadband providers. In addition, to address both objectives, we interviewed representatives from other government entities, as well as private companies that collect and report broadband data. A full list of the industry stakeholders we interviewed can be found in appendix I. To identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data reflects the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to actually access broadband Internet services, we reviewed documentation of the Form 477 process, including submission guidance, and FCC’s proposals and public comments in its 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program and Mobility Fund Phase II proceedings. We also interviewed FCC officials, industry stakeholders, and tribally owned broadband providers to understand FCC’s current process for collecting broadband data. To understand the purpose of the Form 477 data collection process and FCC’s strategic goals, we reviewed relevant statutes, and FCC documents, including FCC’s Strategic Plan 2018––2022, the National Broadband Plan, and FCC’s broadband deployment and progress reports. Given the importance placed on broadband access in these documents, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above and reviewed FCC documents to identify factors affecting the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services. We also reviewed previous GAO work that identified barriers to broadband access on tribal lands. We compared the Form 477 process to FCC’s strategic goals and to factors affecting broadband access to determine the extent to which the Form 477 was designed to collect information on those factors and to meet FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information against the Government Performance and Results Act, as enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also reviewed documentation for other FCC data collection programs, including the Measuring Broadband America program and the Urban Rate Survey, to determine the extent to which FCC collected data on factors affecting broadband access outside of the Form 477 process. To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we interviewed FCC officials and analyzed FCC documents regarding the collection procedures for the Form 477 data and FCC’s policies for working with tribal governments, as well as Connect America Fund documents regarding requirements for providers to share information with tribal governments. We also reviewed documents on past FCC Universal Service Fund processes to challenge broadband data and identified prior instances in which tribal governments or tribally owned providers challenged FCC’s broadband data and the outcomes of those challenges. Additionally, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above, to understand the extent to which: (1) FCC involves tribal governments and other stakeholders in the validation of Form 477 broadband data, (2) tribal governments can access broadband data from FCC or providers, and (3) FCC’s Form 477 data accurately reflected broadband access on their lands. For the nine tribal lands we visited, we asked tribal governments or tribally owned providers to identify where the data do or do not accurately reflect broadband access on maps of FCC’s data. Further, to identify how providers complied with FCC’s tribal engagement requirement and obtain their perspectives, we interviewed providers and industry associations. We compared FCC’s data validation procedures and tribal stakeholders’ feedback on the process to FCC’s policies for working with tribal governments, FCC recommendations from the National Broadband Plan and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also interviewed and received written comments from officials from other federal agencies that have broadband programs, including USDA Rural Utilities Service, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and others, in addition to a state agency and three private companies that collect and report broadband data to understand how other entities collect and validate broadband data. We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director); Crystal Huggins (Analyst in Charge); Katherine Blair; Lilia Chaidez; Camilo Flores; Adam Gomez; Serena Lo; Jeffery Malcolm; John Mingus; Joshua Ormond; Jay Spaan; James Sweetman, Jr.; Elaine Vaurio; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["Broadband furthers economic development, educational attainment, and public health and safety; however, residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband access relative to the U.S. population. Congress has prioritized identifying and targeting funds to unserved areas. FCC uses data from broadband providers to develop maps and reports depicting broadband availability in the United States, with specific information on tribal lands. GAO was asked to review FCC's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data. GAO interviewed stakeholders from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, and visited nine tribal lands. The selected tribes varied geographically and in levels of broadband availability, among other characteristics. GAO also reviewed FCC's rulemakings on broadband data and interviewed other tribal stakeholders, FCC officials, and 13 non-tribal broadband providers selected to include a diversity of technologies. Provider and tribal interviews were based on non-generalizable samples. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) collects data on broadband availability from providers, but these data do not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands (see figure). FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC's and tribal stakeholders' abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. For example, some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband networks and obtain funding to address broadband gaps on their lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most and to more accurately assess FCC's progress toward its goal of increasing all Americans' access to affordable broadband. FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data. In the National Broadband Plan , FCC highlighted the need for a targeted approach to improve broadband availability data for tribal lands. As outlined in the plan, such an approach would include working with tribes to ensure that information is accurate and useful. About half of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC relies solely on data from providers, and most stated FCC should work with tribes to improve the accuracy of FCC's data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data could help improve the accuracy of FCC's broadband data for tribal lands. GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, including that it collect and report data that accurately measure tribal broadband access as well as develop a process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of the data. FCC agreed with the recommendations."], "length": 8882, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "ba50360a6669fb0e2fbd41a020483b9bab271b5ce69b5c87"}
{"input": "", "context": "FEMA’s mission is to help people before, during, and after disasters. It provides assistance to those affected by emergencies and disasters by supplying immediate needs (e.g., ice, water, food, and temporary housing) and providing financial assistance grants for damage to personal or public property. FEMA also provides non-disaster assistance grants to improve the nation’s preparedness, readiness, and resilience to all hazards. FEMA accomplishes a large part of its mission through awarding grants to state, local, and tribal governments and nongovernmental entities to help communities prevent, prepare for, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from disasters and terrorist attacks. As previously mentioned, for fiscal years 2005 through 2014, the agency obligated about $104.5 billion in disaster relief grants. In addition, as of April 2018, the four major disasters in 2017—hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; and the California wildfires—had resulted in over $22 billion in FEMA grants. The current FEMA grants management environment is highly complex with many stakeholders, IT systems, and users. Specifically, this environment is comprised of 45 active disaster and non-disaster grant programs, which are grouped into 12 distinct grant categories. For example, one program in the Preparedness: Fire category is the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) program, which provides grants to fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical service organizations, and state fire training academies to support firefighting and emergency response needs. As another example, the Housing Assistance grant program is in the Recovery Assistance for Individuals category and provides financial assistance to individuals and households in geographical areas that have been declared an emergency or major disaster by the President. Table 1 lists FEMA’s non-disaster and disaster-based grant categories. According to FEMA, the processes for managing these different types of grants vary because the grant programs were developed independently by at least 18 separate authorizing laws that were enacted over a 62-year period (from 1947 through 2009). The various laws call for different administrative and reporting requirements. For example, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, established the statutory authority for 11 of the grant programs, such as the administration of Public Assistance and Individual Assistance grant programs after a presidentially declared disaster. The act also requires the FEMA Administrator to submit an annual report to the President and Congress covering FEMA’s expenditures, contributions, work, and accomplishments, pursuant to the act. As another example, the National Dam Safety Program Act established one of the grant programs aimed at providing financial assistance to improve dam safety. Key stakeholders in modernizing the IT grants management environment include the internal FEMA officials that review, approve, and monitor the grants awarded, such as grant specialists, program analysts, and supervisors. FEMA has estimated that it will need to support about 5,000 simultaneous internal users of its grants management systems. Other users include the grant recipients that apply for, receive, and submit reports on their grant awards; these are considered the external system users. These grant recipients can include individuals, states, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations. FEMA has estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of external users of its grants systems. The administration of the many different grant programs is distributed across four divisions within FEMA’s organizational structure. Figure 1 provides an overview of FEMA’s organizational structure and the divisions that are responsible for administering grants. Within three of the four divisions—Resilience, United States Fire Administration, and Office of Response and Recovery—16 different grant program offices are collectively responsible for administering the 45 grant programs. The fourth division consists of 10 regional offices that help administer grants within their designated geographical regions. For example, the Office of Response and Recovery division oversees three different offices that administer 13 grant programs that are largely related to providing assistance in response to presidentially declared disasters. Figure 2 shows the number of grant programs administered by each of the four divisions’ grant program and regional offices. In addition, appendix II lists the names of the 45 grant programs. FEMA’s OCIO is responsible for developing, enhancing, and maintaining the agency’s IT systems, and for increasing efficiencies and cooperation across the entire organization. However, we and the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) have previously reported that the grant programs and regional offices develop information systems independent of the OCIO and that this has contributed to the agency’s disparate IT environment. We and the DHS OIG have reported that this disparate IT environment was due, in part, to FEMA’s decentralized IT budget and acquisition practices. For example, from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, the OCIO’s budget represented about one-third of the agency’s IT budget, with the grant program offices accounting for the remaining two-thirds of that budget. In February 2018, the OIG found that FEMA had shown limited progress in improving its IT management and that many of the issues reported in prior audits remained unchanged. As such, the OIG initiated a more comprehensive audit of the agency’s IT management that is ongoing. FEMA has identified 10 primary legacy IT systems that support its grants management activities. According to the agency, most of these systems were developed to support specific grant programs or grant categories. Table 2 summarizes the 10 primary legacy systems. According to FEMA officials, the 10 primary grant systems are all in operation (several have been for decades) and are not interoperable. As a result, individual grant programs and regional offices have independently developed work arounds intended to address existing capability gaps with the primary systems. FEMA officials stated that while these work arounds have helped the agency partially address capability gaps with its primary systems, they are often nonstandardized processes, and introduce the potential for information security risks and errors. This environment has contributed to labor-intensive manual processes and an increased burden for grant recipients. The disparate systems have also led to poor information sharing and reporting capabilities, as well as difficulty reconciling financial data. The DHS OIG and we have previously highlighted challenges with FEMA’s past attempts to modernize its grant management systems. For example, In December 2006, the DHS OIG reported that EMMIE, an effort to modernize its grants management systems and provide a single grants processing solution, was being developed without a clear understanding and definition of the future solution. The report also identified the need to ensure crosscutting participation from headquarters, regions, and states in developing and maintaining a complete, documented set of FEMA business and system requirements. In April 2016, we found weaknesses in FEMA’s development of the EMMIE system. For example, we noted that the system was implemented without sufficient documentation of system requirements, an acquisition strategy, up-to-date cost estimate and schedule, total amount spent to develop the system, or a systems integration plan. In response to our findings and related recommendations, FEMA took action to address these issues. For example, the agency implemented a requirements management process that, among other things, provided guidance to programs on analyzing requirements to ensure that they are complete and verifiable. We reported in November 2017 that EMMIE lacked the ability to collect information on all pre-award activities and, as a result, agency officials said that they and applicants used ad hoc reports and personal tracking documents to manage and monitor the progress of grant applications. FEMA officials added that applicants often struggled to access the system and that the system was not user friendly. Due to EMMIE’s shortfalls, the agency had to develop another system in 2017 to supplement EMMIE with additional grant tracking and case management capabilities. FEMA initiated GMM in 2015, in part, due to EMMIE’s failed attempt to modernize the agency’s grants management environment. The program is intended to modernize and streamline the agency’s grants management environment. To help streamline the agency’s grants management processes, the program established a standard framework intended to represent a common grants management lifecycle. The framework consists of five sequential phases—pre-award, award, post-award, closeout, and post- closeout—along with a sixth phase dedicated to continuous grant program management activities, such as analyzing data and producing reports on grant awards and managing IT systems. FEMA also established 43 distinct business functions associated with these six lifecycle phases. Figure 3 provides the general activities that may occur in each of the grant lifecycle phases, but specific activities would depend on the type of grant being administered (i.e., disaster versus non-disaster). GMM is expected to be implemented within the complex IT environment that currently exists at FEMA. For example, the program is intended to replace the 10 legacy grants management systems, and potentially many additional subsystems, with a single IT system. Each of the 10 legacy systems was developed with its own database(s) and with no standardization of the grants management data and, according to FEMA officials, this legacy data has grown significantly over time. Accordingly, FEMA will need to migrate, analyze, and standardize the grants management data before transitioning it to GMM. The agency awarded a contract in June 2016 to support the data migration efforts for GMM. The agency also implemented a data staging environment in October 2017 to migrate the legacy data and identify opportunities to improve the quality of the data. Further, the GMM system is expected to interface with a total of 38 other systems. These include 19 systems external to DHS (e.g., those provided by commercial entities or other federal government agencies) and 19 systems internal to DHS or FEMA. Some of the internal FEMA systems are undergoing their own modernization efforts and will need to be coordinated with GMM, such as the agency’s financial management systems, national flood insurance systems, and enterprise data warehouses. For example, FEMA’s Financial Systems Modernization Program was originally expected to deliver a new financial system in time to interface with GMM. However, the financial modernization has been delayed until after GMM is to be fully implemented; thus, GMM will instead need to interface with the legacy financial system. As a result, GMM is in the process of removing one of its key performance parameters in the acquisition program baseline related to financial systems interoperability and timeliness of data exchanged. In May 2017, DHS approved the acquisition program baseline for GMM. The baseline estimated the total lifecycle costs to be about $251 million, initial operational capability to be achieved by September 2019, and full operational capability to be achieved by September 2020. FEMA intends to develop and deploy its own software applications for GMM using a combination of commercial-off-the-shelf software, open source software, and custom developed code. The agency plans to rely on an Agile software development approach. According to FEMA planning documentation, the agency plans to fully deliver GMM by September 2020 over eight Agile development increments. Agile development is a type of incremental development, which calls for the rapid delivery of software in small, short increments. Many organizations, especially in the federal government, are accustomed to using a waterfall software development model. This type of model typically consists of long, sequential phases, and differs significantly from the Agile development approach. We have previously reported that DHS has sought to establish Agile software development as the preferred method for acquiring and delivering IT capabilities. However, the department has not yet completed critical actions necessary to update its guidance, policies, and practices for Agile programs, in areas such as, developing lifecycle cost estimates, managing IT requirements, testing and evaluation, oversight at key decision points, and ensuring cybersecurity. (See appendix III for more details on the Agile software development approach.) FEMA’s acquisition approach includes using contract support to assist with the development and deployment efforts. The agency selected a public cloud environment to host the computing infrastructure. In addition, from March through July 2017, the agency used a short-term contract aimed at developing prototypes of GMM functionality for grant tracking and monitoring, case management of disaster survivors, grant reporting, and grant closeout. The agency planned to award a second development contract by December 2017 to complete the GMM system (beyond the prototypes) and to begin this work in September 2018. However, due to delays in awarding the second contract to develop the complete GMM system, in January 2018, the program extended the scope and time frames of the initial short-term prototype contract for an additional year to develop the first increment of the GMM system— referred to as the AFG pilot. On August 31, 2018, FEMA awarded the second development contract, which is intended to deliver the remaining functionality beyond the AFG pilot (i.e., increments 2 through 8). FEMA officials subsequently issued a 90-day planning task order for the Agile development contractor to define the work that needs to be done to deliver GMM and the level of effort needed to accomplish that work. However, the planning task order was paused after a bid protest was filed with GAO in September 2018. According to FEMA officials, they resumed work on the planning task order after the bid protest was withdrawn by the protester on November 20, 2018, and then the work was paused again during the partial government shutdown from December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019. FEMA began working on the AFG pilot—GMM’s first increment—in January 2018. This increment was intended to pilot GMM’s use of Agile development methods to replace core functionality for the AFG system (i.e., one of the 10 legacy systems).This system supports three preparedness/fire-related grant programs—Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program, and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program. According to FEMA officials, the AFG system was selected as the first system to be replaced because it is costly to maintain and the DHS OIG had identified cybersecurity concerns with the system. Among the 43 GMM business functions discussed earlier in this report, FEMA officials specified 19 functions to be delivered in the AFG pilot. Figure 4 shows the planned time frames for delivering the AFG pilot in increment 1 (which consisted of four 3-month Agile development sub- increments), as of August 2018. As of August 2018, the program was working on sub-increment 1C of the pilot. In September 2018, GMM deployed its first set of functionality to a total of 19 AFG users—which included seven of 169 total internal AFG users, and 12 of more than 153,000 external AFG users. The functionality supported four of the 19 business functions that are related to the closeout of grants (i.e., the process by which all applicable administrative actions and all required work to award a grant have been completed). This functionality included tasks such as evaluation of final financial reports submitted by grant recipients and final reconciliation of finances (e.g., final disbursement to recipients and return of unobligated federal funds). According to FEMA officials, closeout functionality was selected first for deployment because it was the most costly component of the legacy AFG system to maintain, as it is an entirely manual and labor-intensive process. The remaining AFG functionality and remaining AFG users are to be deployed by the end of the AFG pilot. The GMM program is executed by a program management office, which is overseen by a program manager and program executive. This office is responsible for directing the day-to-day operations and ensuring completion of GMM program goals and objectives. The program office resides within the Office of Response and Recovery, which is headed by an Associate Administrator who reports to the FEMA Administrator. In addition, the GMM program executive (who is also the Regional Administrator for FEMA Region IX) reports directly to the FEMA Administrator. GMM is designated as a level 2 major acquisition, which means that it is subject to oversight by the DHS acquisition review board. The board is chaired by the DHS Undersecretary for Management and is made up of executive-level members, such as the DHS Chief Information Officer. The acquisition review board serves as the departmental executive board that decides whether to approve GMM through key acquisition milestones and reviews the program’s progress and its compliance with approved documentation every 6 months. The board approved the acquisition program baseline for GMM in May 2017 (i.e., estimated costs to be about $251 million and full operational capability to be achieved by September 2020). In addition, the program is reviewed on a monthly basis by FEMA’s Grants Management Executive Steering Group. This group is chaired by the Deputy Administrator of FEMA. Further, DHS’s Financial Systems Modernization Executive Steering Committee, chaired by the DHS Chief Financial Officer, meets monthly and is to provide guidance, oversight, and support to GMM. For government organizations, including FEMA, cybersecurity is a key element in maintaining the public trust. Inadequately protected systems may be vulnerable to insider threats. Such systems are also vulnerable to the risk of intrusion by individuals or groups with malicious intent who could unlawfully access the systems to obtain sensitive information, disrupt operations, or launch attacks against other computer systems and networks. Moreover, cyber-based threats to federal information systems are evolving and growing. Accordingly, we designated cybersecurity as a government-wide high risk area 22 years ago, in 1997, and it has since remained on our high-risk list. Federal law and guidance specify requirements for protecting federal information and information systems. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014 requires executive branch agencies to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide cybersecurity program to provide security for the information and information systems that support operations and assets of the agency. The act also tasks NIST with developing, for systems other than those for national security, standards and guidelines to be used by all agencies to establish minimum cybersecurity requirements for information and information systems based on their level of cybersecurity risk. Accordingly, NIST developed a risk management framework of standards and guidelines for agencies to follow in developing cybersecurity programs. The framework addresses broad cybersecurity and risk management activities, including categorizing the system’s impact level; selecting, implementing, and assessing security controls; authorizing the system to operate (based on progress in remediating control weaknesses and an assessment of residual risk); and monitoring the efficacy of controls on an ongoing basis. Figure 5 provides an overview of this framework. Prior DHS OIG assessments, such as the annual evaluation of DHS’s cybersecurity program, have identified issues with FEMA’s cybersecurity practices. For example, in 2016, the OIG reported that FEMA was operating 111 systems without an authorization to operate. In addition, the agency had not created any corrective action plans for 11 of the systems that were classified as “Secret” or “Top Secret,” thus limiting its ability to ensure that all identified cybersecurity weaknesses were mitigated in a timely manner. The OIG further reported that, for several years, FEMA was consistently below DHS’s 90 percent target for remediating corrective action plans, with scores ranging from 73 to 84 percent. Further, the OIG reported that FEMA had a significant number of open corrective action plans (18,654) and that most of these plans did not contain sufficient information to address identified weaknesses. In 2017, the OIG reported that FEMA had made progress in addressing security weaknesses. For example, it reported that the agency had reduced the number of systems it was operating without an authorization to operate from 111 to 15 systems. According to GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide and the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model Integration® for Development, successful business process reengineering can enable agencies to replace their inefficient and outmoded processes with streamlined processes that can more effectively serve the needs of the public and significantly reduce costs and improve performance. Many times, new IT systems are implemented to support these improved business processes. Thus, effective management of IT requirements is critical for ensuring the successful design, development, and delivery of such new systems. These leading practices state that effective business process reengineering and IT requirements management involve, among other things, (1) ensuring strong executive leadership support for process reengineering; (2) assessing the current and target business environment and business performance goals; (3) establishing plans for implementing new business processes; (4) establishing clear, prioritized, and traceable IT requirements; (5) tracking progress in delivering IT requirements; and (6) incorporating input from end user stakeholders. Among these six selected leading practices for reengineering business processes and managing IT requirements, FEMA fully implemented four and partially implemented two of them for its GMM program. For example, the agency ensured strong senior leadership commitment to changing the way it manages its grants, took steps to assess and document its business environment and performance goals, defined initial IT requirements for GMM, took recent actions to better track progress in delivering planned IT requirements, and incorporated input from end user stakeholders. In addition, FEMA had begun planning for business process reengineering; however, it had not finalized plans for transitioning users to the new business processes. Further, while GMM took steps to establish clearly defined and prioritized IT requirements, key requirements were not always traceable. Table 3 summarizes the extent to which FEMA implemented the selected leading practices. According to GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, the most critical factor for engaging in a reengineering effort is having strong executive leadership support to establish credibility regarding the seriousness of the effort and to maintain the momentum as the agency faces potentially extensive changes to its organizational structure and values. Without such leadership, even the best process design may fail to be accepted and implemented. Agencies should also ensure that there is ongoing executive support (e.g., executive steering committee meetings headed by the agency leader) to oversee the reengineering effort from start to finish. FEMA senior leadership consistently demonstrated its commitment and support for streamlining the agency’s grants management business processes and provided ongoing executive support. For example, one of the Administrator’s top priorities highlighted in FEMA’s 2014 through 2022 strategic plans was to strengthen grants management through innovative systems and business processes to rapidly and effectively deliver the agency’s mission. In accordance with this strategic priority, FEMA initiated GMM with the intent to streamline and modernize grants management across the agency. In addition, FEMA established the Grants Management Executive Steering Group in September 2015. This group is responsible for transforming the agency’s grants management capabilities through its evaluation, prioritization, and oversight of grants management modernization programs, such as GMM. The group’s membership consists of FEMA senior leaders from across the agency’s program and business support areas, such as FEMA regions, Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, Preparedness, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Chief Counsel, OCIO, and the Office of Policy and Program Analysis. In this group’s ongoing commitment to reengineering grants management processes, it meets monthly to review GMM’s updates, risks, and action items, as well as the program’s budget, schedule, and acquisition activities. For example, the group reviewed the status of key acquisition activities and program milestones, such as the follow-on award for the pilot contractor and the program’s initial operational capability date. The group also reviewed GMM’s program risks, such as data migration challenges (discussed later in this report) and delays in the Agile development contract award. With this continuous executive involvement, FEMA is better positioned to maintain momentum for reengineering the new grants management business processes that the GMM system is intended to support. GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide states that agencies undergoing business process reengineering should develop a common understanding of the current environment by documenting existing core business processes to show how the processes work and how they are interconnected. The agencies should then develop a deeper understanding of the target environment by modeling the workflow of each target business process in enough detail to provide a common understanding of exactly what will be changed and who will be affected by a future solution. Agencies should also assess the performance of their current major business processes to identify problem areas that need to be changed or eliminated and to set realistically achievable, customer- oriented, and measurable business performance improvement goals. FEMA has taken steps to document the current and target grants management business processes. Specifically, The agency took steps to develop a common understanding of its grants management processes by documenting each of the 12 grant categories. For example, in 2016 and 2017, the agency conducted several nationwide user outreach sessions with representatives from FEMA headquarters, the 10 regional offices, and state and local grant recipients to discuss the grant categories and the current grants management business environment. In addition, FEMA’s Office of Chief Counsel developed a Grants Management Manual in January 2018 that outlined the authorizing laws, regulations, and agency policies for all of its grant programs. According to the Grants Management Executive Steering Group, the manual is intended to promote standardized grants management procedures across the agency. Additionally, the group expects grant program and regional offices to assess the manual against their own practices, make updates as needed, and ensure that their staff are properly informed and trained. FEMA also documented target grants management business process workflows for 18 of the 19 business functions that were notionally planned to be developed and deployed in the AFG pilot by December 2018. However, the program experienced delays in developing the AFG pilot (discussed later in this report) and, thus, deferred defining the remaining business function until the program gets closer to developing that function, which is now planned for August 2019. In addition, FEMA established measurable business performance goals for GMM that are aimed at addressing problem areas and improving grants management processes. Specifically, the agency established 14 business performance goals and associated thresholds in an October 2017 acquisition program baseline addendum, as well as 126 performance metrics for all 43 of the target grants management business functions in its March 2017 test and evaluation master plan. According to FEMA, the 14 business performance goals are intended to represent essential outcomes that will indicate whether GMM has successfully met critical, business-focused mission needs. GMM performance goals include areas such as improvements in the satisfaction level of users with GMM compared to the legacy systems and improvements in the timeliness of grant award processing. For example, one of GMM’s goals is to get at least 40 percent of users surveyed to agree or strongly agree that their grants management business processes are easier to accomplish with GMM, compared to the legacy systems. Program officials stated that they plan to work with the Agile development contractor to refine their performance goals and target thresholds, develop a plan for collecting the data and calculating the metrics, and establish a performance baseline with the legacy systems. Program officials also stated that they plan to complete these steps by September 2019—GMM’s initial operational capability date—which is when they are required to begin reporting these metrics to the DHS acquisition review board. According to GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, agencies undergoing business process reengineering should (1) establish an overall plan to guide the effort (commonly referred to as an organizational change management plan) and (2) provide a common understanding for stakeholders of what to expect and how to plan for process changes. Agencies should develop the plan at the beginning of the reengineering effort and provide specific details on upcoming process changes, such as critical milestones and deliverables for an orderly transition, roles and responsibilities for change management activities, reengineering goals, skills and resource needs, key barriers to change, communication expectations, training, and any staff redeployments or reductions-in-force. The agency should develop and begin implementing its change management plan ahead of introducing new processes to ensure sufficient support among stakeholders for the reengineered processes. While FEMA has begun planning its business process reengineering activities, it has not finalized its plans or established time frames for their completion. Specifically, as of September 2018, program officials were in the process of drafting an organizational change management plan that is intended to establish an approach for preparing grants management stakeholders for upcoming changes. According to FEMA, this document is intended to help avoid uncertainty and confusion among stakeholders as changes are made to the agency’s grant programs, and ensure successful adoption of new business processes, strategies, and technologies. As discussed previously in this report, the transition to GMM will involve changes to FEMA’s disparate grants management processes that are managed by many different stakeholders across the agency. Program officials acknowledged that change management is the biggest challenge they face in implementing GMM and said they had begun taking several actions intended to support the agency’s change management activities. For example, program officials reported in October 2018 that they had recently created an executive-level working group intended to address FEMA’s policy challenges related to the standardization of grants management processes. Additionally, program officials reported that they planned to: (1) hire additional support staff focused on coordinating grants change management activities; and (2) pursue regional office outreach to encourage broad support among GMM’s decentralized stakeholders, such as state, local, and tribal territories. However, despite these actions, the officials were unable to provide time frames for completing the organizational change management plan or the additional actions. Until the plan and actions are complete, the program lacks assurance that it will have sufficient support among stakeholders for the reengineered processes. In addition, GMM did not establish plans and time frames for the activities that needed to take place prior to, during, and after the transition from the legacy AFG to GMM. Instead, program officials stated that they had worked collaboratively with the legacy AFG program and planned these details informally by discussing them in various communications, such as emails and meetings. However, this informal planning approach is not a repeatable process, which is essential to this program as FEMA plans to transition many sets of functionality to many different users during the lifecycle of this program. Program officials acknowledged that for future transitions they will need more repeatable transition planning and stated that they intend to establish such plans, but did not provide a time frame for when such changes would be made. Until FEMA develops a repeatable process, with established time frames for communicating the transition details to its customers prior to each transition, the agency risks that the transition from the legacy systems to GMM will not occur as intended. It also increases its risk that stakeholders will not support the implementation of reengineered grants management processes. Leading practices for software development efforts state that IT requirements are to be clearly defined and prioritized. This includes, among other things, maintaining bidirectional traceability as the requirements evolve, to ensure there are no inconsistencies among program plans and requirements. In addition, programs using Agile software development are to maintain a product vision, or roadmap, to guide the planning of major program milestones and provide a high-level view of planned requirements. Programs should also maintain a prioritized list (referred to as a backlog) of narrowly defined requirements (referred to as lower-level requirements) that are to be delivered. Programs should maintain this backlog with the product owner to ensure the program is always working on the highest priority requirements that will deliver the most value to the users. The GMM program established clearly defined and prioritized requirements and maintained bidirectional traceability among the various levels of requirements: Grant lifecycle phases: In its Concept of Operations document, the program established six grants management lifecycle phases that represent the highest level of GMM’s requirements, through which it derives lower-level requirements. Business functions: The Concept of Operations document also identifies the next level of GMM requirements—the 43 business functions that describe how FEMA officials, grant recipients, and other stakeholders are to manage grants. According to program officials, the 43 business functions are to be refined, prioritized, and delivered to GMM customers iteratively. Further, for the AFG pilot, the GMM program office prioritized 19 business functions with the product owner and planned the development of these functions in a roadmap. Epics: GMM’s business functions are decomposed into epics, which represent smaller portions of functionality that can be developed over multiple increments. According to program officials, GMM intends to develop, refine, and prioritize the epics iteratively. As of August 2018, the program had developed 67 epics in the program backlog. An example of one of the epics for the AFG pilot is to prepare and submit grant closeout materials. User stories: The epics are decomposed into user stories, which convey the customers’ requirements at the smallest and most discrete unit of work that must be done within a single sprint to create working software. GMM develops, refines, and prioritizes the user stories iteratively. As of August 2018, the program had developed 1,118 user stories in the backlog. An example of a user story is “As an external user, I can log in with a username and password.” Figure 6 provides an example of how GMM’s different levels of requirements are decomposed. Nevertheless, while we found requirements to be traceable at the sprint- level (i.e., epics and user stories), traceability of requirements at the increment-level (i.e., business functions) were inconsistent among different requirements planning documents. Specifically, the capabilities and constraints document shows that five business functions are planned to be developed within sub-increment 1A, whereas the other key planning document—the roadmap for the AFG pilot—showed one of those five functions as being planned for the sub-increment 1B. In addition, the capabilities and constraints document shows that nine business functions are planned to be developed within sub-increment 1B, but the roadmap showed one of those nine functions as being planned for the sub- increment 1C. Program officials stated that they decided to defer these functions to later sub-increments due to unexpected technical difficulties encountered when developing functionality and reprioritizing functions with the product owners. While the officials updated the roadmap to reflect the deferred functionality, they did not update the capabilities and constraints document to maintain traceability between these two important requirements planning documents. Program officials stated that they learned during the AFG pilot that the use of a capabilities and constraints document for increment-level scope planning was not ideal and that they intended to change the process for how they documented planned requirements for future increments. However, program officials did not provide a time frame for when this change would be made. Until the program makes this change and then ensures it maintains traceability of increment-level requirements between requirements planning documents, it will continue to risk confusion among stakeholders about what is to be delivered. In addition, until recently, GMM’s planning documents were missing up- to-date information regarding when most of the legacy systems will be transitioned to GMM. Specifically, while the program’s planning documents (including the GMM roadmap) provided key milestones for the entire lifecycle of the program and high-level capabilities to be delivered in the AFG pilot, these documents lacked up-to-date time frames for when FEMA planned to transition the nine remaining legacy systems. For example, in May 2017, GMM drafted notional time frames for transitioning the legacy systems, including plans for AFG to be the seventh system replaced by GMM. However, in December 2017, the program decided to reprioritize the legacy systems so that AFG would be replaced first—yet this major change was not reflected in the program’s roadmap. Moreover, while AFG program officials were informed of the decision to transition the AFG program first, in June 2018 officials from other grant programs told us that they had not been informed on when their systems were to be replaced. As a result, these programs were uncertain about when they should start planning for their respective transitions. In August 2018, GMM program officials acknowledged that they were delayed in deciding the sequencing order for the legacy system transitions. Program officials stated that the delay was due to their need to factor the Agile development contractor’s perspective into these decisions; yet, at that time, the contract award had been delayed by approximately 8 months. Subsequently, in October 2018, program officials identified tentative time frames for transitioning the remaining legacy systems. Program officials stated that they determined the tentative time frames for transitioning the legacy systems based on key factors, such as mission need, cost, security vulnerabilities, and technical obsolescence, and that they had shared these new time frames with grant program officials. The officials also stated that, once the Agile contractor begins contract performance, they expect to be able to validate the contractor’s capacity and finalize these time frames by obtaining approval from the Grants Management Executive Steering Group. By taking steps to update and communicate these important time frames, FEMA should be better positioned to ensure that each of the grant programs are prepared for transitioning to GMM. According to leading practices, Agile programs should track their progress in delivering planned IT requirements within a sprint (i.e., short iterations that produce working software). Given that sprints are very short cycles of development (e.g., 2 weeks), the efficiency of completing planned work within a sprint relies on a disciplined approach that includes using a fixed pace, referred to as the sprint cadence, that provides a consistent and predictable development routine. A disciplined approach also includes identifying by the start of a sprint which user stories will be developed, developing those stories to completion (e.g., fully tested and demonstrated to, and accepted by, the product owner), and tracking completion progress of those stories. Progress should be communicated to relevant stakeholders and used by the development teams to better understand their capacity to develop stories, continuously improve on their processes, and forecast how long it will take to deliver all remaining capabilities. The GMM program did not effectively track progress in delivering IT requirements during the first nine sprints, which occurred from January to June 2018. These gaps in tracking the progress of requirements, in part, had an impact on the program’s progress in delivering the 19 AFG business functions that were originally planned by December 2018 and are now deferred to August 2019. However, beginning in July 2018, in response to our ongoing review, the program took steps to improve in these areas. Specifically, GMM did not communicate the status of its Agile development progress to program stakeholders, such as the grant programs, the regional offices, and the development teams, during most of the first nine sprints. Program officials acknowledged that they should use metrics to track development progress and, in July 2018, they began reporting metrics to program stakeholders. For example, they began collecting and providing data on the number of stories planned and delivered, estimated capacity for development teams, and the number of days spent working on the sprint, as part of the program’s weekly status reports to program stakeholders, such as product owners. Rather than using a fixed, predictable sprint cadence, GMM allowed a variable development cadence, meaning that sprint durations varied from 1 to 4 weeks throughout the first nine sprints. Program officials noted that they had experimented with the use of a variable cadence to allow more time to complete complex technical work. Program officials stated that they realized that varying the sprints was not effective and, in July 2018 for sprint 10, they reverted back to a fixed, 2 week cadence. GMM added a significant amount of scope during its first nine sprints, after the development work had already begun. For example, the program committed to 28 user stories at the beginning of sprint eight, and then nearly doubled the work by adding 25 additional stories in the middle of the sprint. Program officials cited multiple reasons for adding more stories, including that an insufficient number of stories had been defined in the backlog when the sprint began, the realization that planned stories were too large and needed to be decomposed into smaller stories, and the realization that other work would be needed in addition to what was originally planned. Program officials recognized that, by the start of a sprint, the requirements should be sufficiently defined, such that they are ready for development without requiring major changes during the sprint. The program made recent improvements in sprints 11 and 12, which had only five stories added after the start of a sprint. By taking these steps to establish consistency among sprints, the program has better positioned itself to more effectively monitor and manage the remaining IT development work. In addition, this improvement in consistency should help the program avoid future deferments of functionality. Leading practices state that programs should regularly collaborate with, and collect input from, relevant stakeholders; monitor the status of stakeholder involvement; incorporate stakeholder input; and measure how well stakeholders’ needs are being met. For Agile programs, it is especially important to track user satisfaction to determine how well the program has met stakeholders’ needs. Consistent stakeholder participation ensures that the program meets its stakeholders’ needs. FEMA implemented its responsibilities in this area through several means, such as stakeholder outreach activities; development of a strategic communications plan; and continuous monitoring, solicitation, and recording of stakeholder involvement and feedback. For example, the agency conducted nationwide outreach sessions from January 2016 through August 2017 and began conducting additional outreach sessions in April 2018. These outreach sessions involved hundreds of representatives from FEMA headquarters, the 10 regional offices, and state and local grant recipients to collect information on the current grants management environment and opportunities for streamlining grants management processes. FEMA also held oversight and stakeholder outreach activities and actively solicited and recorded feedback from its stakeholders on a regular basis. For example, GMM regularly verified with users that the new functionality met their IT requirements, as part of the Agile development cycle. Additionally, we observed several GMM biweekly requirements validation sessions where the program’s stakeholders were involved and provided feedback as part of the requirements development and refinement process. In addition, FEMA identified GMM stakeholders and tracked its engagement with these stakeholders using a stakeholder register. The agency also defined processes for how the GMM program is to collaborate with its stakeholders in a stakeholder communication plan and Agile development team agreement. Also, while several officials from the selected grant program and regional offices that we interviewed indicated that the program could improve in communicating its plans for GMM and incorporating stakeholder input, most of the representatives from these offices stated that GMM is doing well at interacting with its stakeholders. Finally, in October 2018, program officials reported that they had recently begun measuring user satisfaction by conducting surveys and interviews with users that have utilized the new functionality within GMM. The program’s outreach activities, collection of stakeholder input, and measurement of user satisfaction demonstrate that the program is taking the appropriate steps to incorporate stakeholder input. Reliable cost estimates are critical for successfully delivering IT programs. Such estimates provide the basis for informed decision making, realistic budget formulation, meaningful progress measurement, and accountability for results. GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide defines leading practices related to the following four characteristics of a high-quality, reliable estimate. Comprehensive. The estimate accounts for all possible costs associated with a program, is structured in sufficient detail to ensure that costs are neither omitted nor double counted, and documents all cost-influencing assumptions. Well-documented. Supporting documentation explains the process, sources, and methods used to create the estimate; contains the underlying data used to develop the estimate; and is adequately reviewed and approved by management. Accurate. The estimate is not overly conservative or optimistic, is based on an assessment of the costs most likely to be incurred, and is regularly updated so that it always reflects the program’s current status. Credible. Discusses any limitations of the analysis because of uncertainty or sensitivity surrounding data or assumptions, the estimate’s results are cross-checked, and an independent cost estimate is conducted by a group outside the acquiring organization to determine whether other estimating methods produce similar results. In May 2017, DHS approved GMM’s lifecycle cost estimate of about $251 million for fiscal years 2015 through 2030. We found this initial estimate to be reliable because it fully or substantially addressed all the characteristics associated with a reliable cost estimate. For example, the estimate comprehensively included government and contractor costs, all elements of the program’s work breakdown structure, and all phases of the system lifecycle; and was aligned with the program’s technical documentation at the time the estimate was developed. GMM also fully documented the key assumptions, data sources, estimating methodology, and calculations for the estimate. Further, the program conducted a risk assessment and sensitivity analysis, and DHS conducted an independent assessment of the cost estimate to validate the accuracy and credibility of the cost estimate. However, key assumptions that FEMA made about the program changed soon after DHS approved the cost estimate in May 2017. Thus, the initial cost estimate no longer reflects the current approach for the program. For example, key assumptions about the program that changed include: Change in the technical approach: The initial cost estimate assumed that GMM would implement a software-as-a-service model, meaning that FEMA would rely on a service provider to deliver software applications and the underlying infrastructure to run them. However, in December 2017, the program instead decided to implement an infrastructure-as-a-service model, meaning that FEMA would develop and deploy its own software application and rely on a service provider to deliver and manage the computing infrastructure (e.g., servers, software, storage, and network equipment). According to program officials, this decision was made after learning from the Agile prototypes that the infrastructure-as-a-service model would allow GMM to develop the system in a more flexible environment. Increase in the number of system development personnel: A key factor with Agile development is the number of development teams (each consisting of experts in software development, testing, and cybersecurity) that are operating concurrently and producing separate portions of software functionality. Program officials initially assumed that they would need three to four concurrent Agile development teams, but subsequently realized that they would instead need to expend more resources to achieve GMM’s original completion date. Specifically, program officials now expect they will need to at least double, and potentially triple, the number of concurrent development teams to meet GMM’s original target dates. Significant delays and complexities with data migration: In 2016 and 2017, GMM experienced various technical challenges in its effort to transfer legacy system data to a data staging platform. This data transfer effort needed to be done to standardize the data before eventually migrating the data to GMM. These challenges resulted in significant delays and cost increases. Program officials reported that, by February 2018—at least 9 months later than planned—all legacy data had been transferred to a data staging platform so that FEMA officials could begin analyzing and standardizing the data prior to migrating it into GMM. FEMA officials reported that they anticipated the cost estimate to increase, and for this increase to be high enough to breach the $251 million threshold set in GMM’s May 2017 acquisition program baseline. Thus, consistent with DHS’s acquisition guidance, the program informed the DHS acquisition review board of this anticipated breach. The board declared that the program was in a cost breach status, as of September 12, 2018. As of October 2018, program officials stated that they were in the process of revising the cost estimate to reflect the changes in the program and to incorporate actual costs. In addition, the officials stated that the program was applying a new cost estimating methodology tailored for Agile programs that DHS’s Cost Analysis Division had been developing. In December 2018, program officials stated that they had completed the revised cost estimate but it was still undergoing departmental approval. Establishing an updated cost estimate should help FEMA better understand the expected costs to deliver GMM under the program’s current approach and time frames. The success of an IT program depends, in part, on having an integrated and reliable master schedule that defines when the program’s set of work activities and milestone events are to occur, how long they will take, and how they are related to one another. Among other things, a reliable schedule provides a roadmap for systematic execution of an IT program and the means by which to gauge progress, identify and address potential problems, and promote accountability. GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide defines leading practices related to the following four characteristics that are vital to having a reliable integrated master schedule. Comprehensive. A comprehensive schedule reflects all activities for both the government and its contractors that are necessary to accomplish a program’s objectives, as defined in the program’s work breakdown structure. The schedule also includes the labor, materials, and overhead needed to do the work and depicts when those resources are needed and when they will be available. It realistically reflects how long each activity will take and allows for discrete progress measurement. Well-constructed. A schedule is well-constructed if all of its activities are logically sequenced with the most straightforward logic possible. Unusual or complicated logic techniques are used judiciously and justified in the schedule documentation. The schedule’s critical path represents a true model of the activities that drive the program’s earliest completion date and total float accurately depicts schedule flexibility. Credible. A schedule that is credible is horizontally traceable—that is, it reflects the order of events necessary to achieve aggregated products or outcomes. It is also vertically traceable—that is, activities in varying levels of the schedule map to one another and key dates presented to management in periodic briefings are consistent with the schedule. Data about risks are used to predict a level of confidence in meeting the program’s completion date. The level of necessary schedule contingency and high-priority risks are identified by conducting a robust schedule risk analysis. Controlled. A schedule is controlled if it is updated regularly by trained schedulers using actual progress and logic to realistically forecast dates for program activities. It is compared to a designated baseline schedule to measure, monitor, and report the program’s progress. The baseline schedule is accompanied by a baseline document that explains the overall approach to the program, defines ground rules and assumptions, and describes the unique features of the schedule. The baseline schedule and current schedule are subject to a configuration management control process. GMM’s schedule was unreliable because it minimally addressed three characteristics—comprehensive, credible, and controlled—and did not address the fourth characteristic of a reliable estimate—well-constructed. One of the most significant issues was that the program’s fast approaching, final delivery date of September 2020 was not informed by a realistic assessment of GMM development activities, and rather was determined by imposing an unsubstantiated delivery date. Table 4 summarizes our assessment of GMM’s schedule. In discussing the reasons for the shortfalls in these practices, program officials stated that they had been uncertain about the level of rigor that should be applied to the GMM schedule, given their use of Agile development. However, leading practices state that program schedules should meet all the scheduling practices, regardless of whether a program is using Agile development. As discussed earlier in this report, GMM has already experienced significant schedule delays. For example, the legacy data migration effort, the AFG pilot, and the Agile development contract have been delayed. Program officials also stated that the delay in awarding and starting the Agile contract has delayed other important activities, such as establishing time frames for transitioning legacy systems. A more robust schedule could have helped FEMA predict the impact of delays on remaining activities and identify which activities appeared most critical so that the program could ensure that any risks in delaying those activities were properly mitigated. In response to our review and findings, program officials recognized the need to continually enhance their schedule practices to improve the management and communication of program activities. As a result, in August 2018, the officials stated that they planned to add a master scheduler to the team to improve the program’s schedule practices and ensure that all of the areas of concern we identified are adequately addressed. In October 2018, the officials reported that they had recently added two master schedulers to GMM. According to the statement of objectives, the Agile contractor is expected to develop an integrated master schedule soon after it begins performance. However, program officials stated that GMM is schedule-driven—due to the Executive Steering Group’s expectation that the solution will be delivered by September 2020. The officials added that, if GMM encounters challenges in meeting this time frame, the program plans to seek additional resources to allow it to meet the 2020 target. GMM’s schedule-driven approach has already led to an increase in estimated costs and resources. For example, as previously mentioned, the program has determined that, to meet its original target dates, GMM needs to at least double, and possibly triple, the number of concurrent Agile development teams. In addition, we have previously reported that schedule pressure on federal IT programs can lead to omissions and skipping of key activities, especially system testing. In August 2018, program officials acknowledged that September 2020 may not be feasible and that the overall completion time frames established in the acquisition program baseline may eventually need to be rebaselined. Without a robust schedule to forecast whether FEMA’s aggressive delivery goal for GMM is realistic to achieve, leadership will be limited in its ability to make informed decisions on what additional increases in cost or reductions in scope might be needed to fully deliver the system. NIST’s risk management framework establishes standards and guidelines for agencies to follow in developing cybersecurity programs. Agencies are expected to use this framework to achieve more secure information and information systems through the implementation of appropriate risk mitigation strategies and by performing activities that ensure that necessary security controls are integrated into agencies’ processes. The framework addresses broad cybersecurity and risk management activities, which include the following: Categorize the system: Programs are to categorize systems by identifying the types of information used, selecting a potential impact level (e.g., low, moderate, or high), and assigning a category based on the highest level of impact to the system’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability, if the system was compromised. Programs are also to document a description of the information system and its boundaries and should register the system with appropriate program management offices. System categorization is documented in a system security plan. Select and implement security controls: Programs are to determine protective measures, or security controls, to be implemented based on the system categorization results. These security controls are documented in a system security plan. For example, control areas include access controls, incident response, security assessment and authorization, identification and authentication, and configuration management. Once controls are identified, programs are to determine planned implementation actions for each of the designated controls. These implementation actions are also specified in the system security plan. Assess security controls: Programs are to develop, review, and approve a security assessment plan. The purpose of the security assessment plan approval is to establish the appropriate expectations for the security control assessment. Programs are to also perform a security control assessment by evaluating the security controls in accordance with the procedures defined in the security assessment plan, in order to determine the extent to which the controls were implemented correctly. The output of this process is intended to produce a security assessment report to document the issues, findings, and recommendations. Programs are to conduct initial remediation actions on security controls and reassess those security controls, as appropriate. Obtain an authorization to operate the system: Programs are to obtain security authorization approval in order to operate a system. Resolving weaknesses and vulnerabilities identified during testing is an important step leading up to achieving an authorization to operate. Programs are to establish corrective action plans to address any deficiencies in cybersecurity policies, procedures, and practices. DHS guidance also states that corrective action plans must be developed for every weakness identified during a security control assessment and within a security assessment report. Monitor security controls on an ongoing basis: Programs are to monitor their security controls on an ongoing basis after deployment, including determining the security impact of proposed or actual changes to the information system and assessing the security controls in accordance with a monitoring strategy that determines the frequency of monitoring the controls. For the GMM program’s engineering and test environment, which went live in February 2018, FEMA fully addressed three of the five key cybersecurity practices in NIST’s risk management framework and partially addressed two of the practices. Specifically, FEMA categorized GMM’s environment based on security risk, implemented select security controls, and monitored security controls on an ongoing basis. However, the agency partially addressed the areas of assessing security controls and obtaining an authorization to operate the system. Table 5 provides a summary of the extent to which FEMA addressed NIST’s key cybersecurity practices for GMM’s engineering and test environment. Consistent with NIST’s framework, GMM categorized the security risk of its engineering and test environment and identified it as a moderate- impact environment. A moderate-impact environment is one where the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a serious or adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. GMM completed the following steps leading to this categorization: The program documented in its System Security Plan the various types of data and information that the environment will collect, process, and store, such as conducting technology research, building or enhancing technology, and maintaining IT networks. The program established three information types and assigned security levels of low, moderate, or high impact in the areas of confidentiality, availability, and integrity. A low-impact security level was assigned to two information types: (1) conducting technology research and (2) building or enhancing technology; and a moderate- impact security level was assigned to the third information type: maintaining IT networks. The engineering and test environment was categorized as an overall moderate-impact system, based on the highest security impact level assignment. GMM documented a description of the environment, including a diagram depicting the system’s boundaries, which illustrates, among other things, databases and firewalls. GMM properly registered its engineering and test environment with FEMA’s Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and acting Chief Information Security Officer. By conducting the security categorization process, GMM has taken steps that should ensure that the appropriate security controls are selected for the program’s engineering and test environment. Consistent with NIST’s framework and the system categorization results, GMM appropriately determined which security controls to implement and planned actions for implementing those controls in its System Security Plan for the engineering and test environment. For example, the program utilized NIST guidance to select standard controls for a system categorized with a moderate-impact security level. These control areas include, for example, access controls, risk assessment, incident response, identification and authentication, and configuration management. Further, the program documented its planned actions to implement each control in its System Security Plan. For example, GMM documented that the program plans to implement its Incident Response Testing control by participating in an agency-wide exercise and unannounced vulnerability scans. As another example, GMM documented that the program plans to implement its Contingency Plan Testing control by testing the contingency plan annually, reviewing the test results, and preparing after action reports. By selecting and planning for the implementation of security controls, GMM has taken steps to mitigate its security risks and protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system. Consistent with NIST’s framework, in January 2018, GMM program officials developed a security assessment plan for the engineering and test environment. According to GMM program officials, this plan was reviewed by the security assessment team. However, the security assessment plan lacked essential details. Specifically, while the plan included the general process for evaluating the environment’s security controls, the planned assessment procedures for all 964 security controls were not sufficiently defined. Specifically, GMM program officials copied example assessment procedures from NIST guidance and inserted them into its security assessment documentation for all of its 964 controls, without making further adjustments to explain the steps that should be taken specific to GMM. Table 6 shows an example of a security assessment procedure copied from the NIST guidance that should have been further adjusted for GMM. In addition, the actual assessment procedures that the GMM assessors used to evaluate the security controls were not documented. Instead, the program only documented whether each control passed or failed each test. GMM program officials stated that the planned assessment procedures are based on an agency template that was exported from a DHS compliance tool, and that FEMA security officials have been instructed by the DHS OCIO not to tailor or make any adjustments to the template language. However, the assessment procedures outlined in NIST’s guidance are to serve as a starting point for organizations preparing their program specific assessments. According to NIST, organizations are expected to select and tailor their assessment procedures for each security control from NIST’s list of suggested assessment options (e.g., review, analyze, or inspect policies, procedures, and related documentation options). DHS OCIO officials stated that, consistent with NIST’s guidance, they expect that components will ensure they are in compliance with the minimum standards and will also add details and additional rigor, as appropriate, to tailor the planned security assessment procedures to fit their unique missions or needs. In November 2018, in response to our audit, DHS OCIO officials stated that they were meeting with FEMA OCIO officials to understand why they did not document the planned and actual assessment procedures performed by the assessors for GMM. Until FEMA ensures that detailed planned evaluation methods and actual evaluation procedures specific to GMM are defined, the program risks assessing security controls incorrectly, having controls that do not work as intended, and producing undesirable outcomes with respect to meeting the security requirements. In addition, the security assessment plan was not approved by FEMA’s OCIO before proceeding with the security assessment. Program officials stated that approval was not required for the security assessment plan prior to the development of the security assessment report. However, NIST guidance states that the purpose of the security assessment plan approval is to establish the appropriate expectations for the security control assessment. By not getting the security assessment plan approved by FEMA’s OCIO before security assessment reviews were conducted, GMM risks inconsistencies with the plan and security objectives of the organization. Finally, consistent with NIST guidance, GMM performed a security assessment in December 2017 of the engineering and test environment’s controls, which identified 36 vulnerabilities (23 critical- and high-impact vulnerabilities and 13 medium- and low-impact vulnerabilities). The program also documented these vulnerabilities and associated findings and recommendations in a security assessment report. GMM conducted initial remediation actions (i.e., remediation of vulnerabilities that should be corrected immediately) for 12 of the critical- and high-impact vulnerabilities and a reassessment of those security controls confirmed that they were resolved by January 2018. Remediation of the remaining 11 critical- and high-impact vulnerabilities and 13 medium- and low- impact vulnerabilities were to be addressed by corrective action plans as part of the authorization to operate process, which is discussed in the next section. The authorization to operate GMM’s engineering and test environment was granted on February 5, 2018. Among other things, this decision was based on the important stipulation that the remaining 11 critical- and high- impact vulnerabilities associated with multifactor authentication would be addressed within 45 days, or by March 22, 2018. However, the program did not meet this deadline and, instead, approximately 2 months after this deadline passed, obtained a waiver to remediate these vulnerabilities by May 9, 2019. These vulnerabilities are related to a multifactor authentication capability. Program officials stated that they worked with FEMA OCIO officials to attempt to address these vulnerabilities by the initial deadline, but they were unsuccessful in finding a viable solution. Therefore, GMM program officials developed a waiver at the recommendation of the OCIO to provide additional time to develop a viable solution. However, a multifactor authentication capability is essential to ensuring that users are who they say they are, prior to granting users access to the GMM engineering and test environment, in order to reduce the risk of harmful actors accessing the system. In addition, as of September 2018, the program had not established corrective action plans for the 13 medium- and low-impact vulnerabilities. Program officials stated that they do not typically address low-impact vulnerabilities; however, this is in conflict with DHS guidance that specifies that corrective action plans must be developed for every weakness identified during a security control assessment and within a security assessment report. In response to our audit, in October 2018, GMM program officials developed these remaining corrective action plans. The plans indicated that these vulnerabilities were to be fully addressed by January 2019 and April 2019. While the program eventually took corrective actions in response to our audit by developing the missing plans, the GMM program initially failed to follow DHS’s guidance on preparing corrective actions plans for all security vulnerabilities. Until GMM consistently follows DHS’s guidance, it will be difficult for FEMA to determine the extent to which GMM’s security weaknesses identified during its security control assessments are remediated. Additionally, as we have reported at other agencies, vulnerabilities can be indicators of more significant underlying issues and, thus, without appropriate management attention or prompt remediation, GMM is at risk of unnecessarily exposing the program to potential exploits. Moreover, GMM was required to assess all untested controls by March 7, 2018, or no later than 30 days after the approval of the authorization to operate; however, it did not meet this deadline. Specifically, we found that, by October 2018, FEMA had not fully tested 190 security controls in the GMM engineering and test environment. These controls were related to areas such as security incident handling and allocation of resources required to protect an information system. In response to our findings, in October 2018, GMM program officials reported that they had since fully tested 27 controls and partially tested the remaining 163 controls. Program officials stated that testing of the 163 controls is a shared responsibility between GMM and other parties (e.g., the cloud service provider). They added that GMM had completed its portion of the testing but was in the process of verifying the completion of testing by other parties. Program officials stated that the untested controls were not addressed sooner, in part, because of errors resulting from configuration changes in the program’s compliance tool during a system upgrade, which have now been resolved. Until GMM ensures that all security controls have been tested, it remains at an increased risk of exposing programs to potential exploits. Consistent with the NIST framework, GMM established methods for assessing and monitoring security controls to be conducted after an authorization to operate has been approved. GMM has tailored its cybersecurity policies and practices for monitoring its controls to take into account the frequent and iterative pace with which system functionality is continuously being introduced into the GMM environment. Specifically, the GMM program established a process for assessing security impact changes to the system and conducting reauthorizations to operate within the rapid Agile delivery environment. As part of this process, GMM embedded cybersecurity experts on each Agile development team so that they are involved early and can impact security considerations from the beginning of requirements development through testing and deployment of system functionality. In addition, the process involves important steps for ensuring that the system moves from development to completion, while producing a secure and reliable system. For example, it includes procedures for creating, reviewing, and testing new system functionality. As the new system functionality is integrated with existing system functionality, it is to undergo automated testing and security scans in order to ensure that the integrity of the security of the system has not been compromised. Further, an automated process is to deploy the code if it passes all security scans, code tests, and code quality checks. GMM’s process for conducting a reauthorization to operate within the rapid delivery Agile development environment is to follow FEMA guidance that states that all high-level changes made to a FEMA IT system must receive approval from both a change advisory board and the FEMA Chief Information Officer. The board and FEMA Chief Information Officer are to focus their review and approval on scheduled releases and epics (i.e., collections of user stories). Additionally, the Information System Security Officer is to review each planned user story and, if it is determined that the proposed changes may impact the integrity of the authorization, the Information System Security Officer is to work with the development team to begin the process of updating the system authorization. Finally, GMM uses automated tools to track the frequency in which security controls are assessed and to ensure that required scanning data are received by FEMA for reporting purposes. Program officials stated that, in the absence of department-level and agency-level guidance, they have coordinated with DHS and FEMA OCIO officials to ensure that these officials are in agreement with GMM’s approach to continuous monitoring. By having monitoring control policies and procedures in place, FEMA management is positioned to more effectively prioritize and plan its risk response to current threats and vulnerabilities for the GMM program. Given FEMA’s highly complex grants management environment, with its many stakeholders, IT systems, and internal and external users, implementing leading practices for business process reengineering and IT requirements management is critical for success. FEMA has taken many positive steps, including ensuring executive leadership support for business process reengineering, documenting the agency’s grants management processes and performance improvement goals, defining initial IT requirements for the program, incorporating input from end user stakeholders into the development and implementation process, and taking recent actions to improve its delivery of planned IT requirements. Nevertheless, until the GMM program finalizes plans and time frames for implementing its organizational change management actions, plans and communicates system transition activities, and maintains clear traceability of IT requirements, FEMA will be limited in its ability to provide streamlined grants management processes and effectively deliver a modernized IT system to meet the needs of its large range of users. While GMM’s initial cost estimate was reliable, key assumptions about the program since the initial estimate had changed and, therefore, it no longer reflected the current approach for the program. The forthcoming updated cost schedule is expected to better reflect the current approach. However, the program’s unreliable schedule to fully deliver GMM by September 2020 is aggressive and unrealistic. The delays the program has experienced to date further compound GMM’s schedule issues. Without a robust schedule that has been informed by a realistic assessment of GMM’s development activities, leadership will be limited in its ability to make informed decisions on what additional increases in cost or reductions in scope might be needed to achieve their goals. Further, FEMA’s implementation of cybersecurity practices for GMM in the areas of system categorization, selection and implementation, and monitoring will help the program. However, GMM lacked essential details for evaluating security controls, did not approve the security assessment plan before proceeding with the security assessment, did not follow DHS’s guidance to develop corrective action plans for all security vulnerabilities, and did not fully test all security controls. As a result, the GMM engineering and test environment remains at an increased risk of exploitations. We are making eight recommendations to FEMA: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office finalizes the organizational change management plan and time frames for implementing change management actions. (Recommendation 1) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office plans and communicates its detailed transition activities to its affected customers before they transition to GMM and undergo significant changes to their processes. (Recommendation 2) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office implements its planned changes to its processes for documenting requirements for future increments and ensures it maintains traceability among key IT requirements documents. (Recommendation 3) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office updates the program schedule to address the leading practices for a reliable schedule identified in this report. (Recommendation 4) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the FEMA OCIO defines sufficiently detailed planned evaluation methods and actual evaluation methods for assessing security controls. (Recommendation 5) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the FEMA OCIO approves a security assessment plan before security assessment reviews are conducted. (Recommendation 6) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office follows DHS guidance on preparing corrective action plans for all security vulnerabilities. (Recommendation 7) The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office fully tests all of its security controls for the system. (Recommendation 8) DHS provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendix IV. In its comments, the department concurred with all eight of our recommendations and provided estimated completion dates for implementing each of them. For example, with regard to recommendation 4, the department stated that FEMA plans to update the GMM program schedule to address the leading practices for a reliable schedule by April 30, 2019. In addition, for recommendation 7, the department stated that FEMA plans to ensure that corrective action plans are prepared by July 31, 2019, to address all identified security vulnerabilities for GMM. If implemented effectively, the actions that FEMA plans to take in response to the recommendations should address the weaknesses we identified. We also received technical comments from DHS and FEMA officials, which we incorporated, as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. Our objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is implementing leading practices for reengineering its grants management business processes and incorporating business needs into Grants Management Modernization (GMM) information technology (IT) requirements; (2) assess the reliability of the program’s estimated costs and schedule; and (3) determine the extent to which FEMA is addressing key cybersecurity practices for GMM. To address the first objective, we reviewed GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide and Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model for Integration for Development to identify practices associated with business process reengineering and IT requirements management. We then selected six areas that, in our professional judgment, represented foundational practices that were of particular importance to the successful implementation of an IT modernization effort that is using Agile development processes. We also selected the practices that were most relevant based on where GMM was in the system development lifecycle and we discussed the practice areas with FEMA officials. The practices are: Ensuring executive leadership support for process reengineering Assessing the current and target business environment and business Establishing plans for implementing new business processes Establishing clear, prioritized, and traceable IT requirements Tracking progress in delivering IT requirements Incorporating input from end user stakeholders We also reviewed selected chapters of GAO’s draft Agile Assessment Guide (Version 6A), which is intended to establish a consistent framework based on best practices that can be used across the federal government for developing, implementing, managing, and evaluating agencies’ IT investments that rely on Agile methods. To develop this guide, GAO worked closely with Agile experts in the public and private sector; some chapters of the guide are considered more mature because they have been reviewed by the expert panel. We reviewed these chapters to ensure that our expectations for how FEMA should apply the six practices for business process reengineering and IT requirements management are appropriate for an Agile program and are consistent with the draft guidance that is under development. Additionally, since Agile development programs may use different terminology to describe their software development processes, the Agile terms used in this report (e.g., increment, sprint, epic, etc.) are specific to the GMM program. We obtained and analyzed FEMA grants management modernization documentation, such as current and target grants management business processes, acquisition program baseline, operational requirements document, concept of operations, requirements analyses workbooks, Grants Management Executive Steering Group artifacts, stakeholder outreach artifacts, Agile increment- and sprint-level planning and development artifacts, and the requirements backlog. We assessed the program documentation against the selected practices to determine the extent to which the agency had implemented them. We then assessed each practice area as: fully implemented—FEMA provided complete evidence that showed it fully implemented the practice area; partially implemented—FEMA provided evidence that showed it partially implemented the practice area; not implemented—FEMA did not provide evidence that showed it implemented any of the practice area. Additionally, we observed Agile increment and sprint development activities at GMM facilities in Washington, D.C. We also observed a demonstration of how the program manages its lower level requirements (i.e., user stories and epics) and maintains traceability of the requirements using an automated tool at GMM facilities in Washington, D.C. We also interviewed FEMA officials, including the GMM Program Executive, GMM Program Manager, GMM Business Transformation Team Lead, and Product Owner regarding their efforts to streamline grants management business processes, collect and incorporate stakeholder input, and manage GMM’s requirements. In addition, we interviewed FEMA officials from four out of 16 grant program offices and two out of 10 regional offices to obtain contextual information and illustrative examples of FEMA’s efforts to reengineer grants management business processes and collect business requirements for GMM. Specifically, We selected the four grant program offices based on a range of grant programs managed, legacy systems used, and the amount of grant funding awarded. We also sought to select a cross section of different characteristics, such as selecting larger grant program offices, as well as smaller offices. In addition, we ensured that our selection included the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) program office because officials in this office represent the first GMM users and, therefore, are more actively involved with the program’s Agile development practices. Based on these factors, we selected: Public Assistance Division, Individual Assistance Division, AFG, and National Fire Academy. Additionally, the four selected grant program offices are responsible for 16 of the total 45 grant programs and are users of five of the nine primary legacy IT systems. The four selected grant program offices also represent about 68 percent of the total grant funding awarded by FEMA from fiscal years 2005 through 2016. We selected two regional offices based on (1) the largest amount of total FEMA grant funding for fiscal years 2005 through 2016—Region 6 located in Denton, Texas; and (2) the highest percentage of AFG funding compared to the office’s total grant funding awarded from fiscal years 2005 through 2016—Region 5 located in Chicago, Illinois. To assess the reliability of data from the program’s automated IT requirements management tool, we interviewed knowledgeable officials about the quality control procedures used by the program to assure accuracy and completeness of the data. We also compared the data to other relevant program documentation on GMM requirements. We determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of evaluating GMM’s practices for managing IT requirements. For our second objective, to assess the reliability of GMM’s estimated costs and schedule, we reviewed documentation on GMM’s May 2017 lifecycle cost estimate and on the program’s schedule, dated May 2018. To assess the reliability of the May 2017 lifecycle cost estimate, we evaluated documentation supporting the estimate, such as the cost estimating model, the report on GMM’s Cost Estimating Baseline Document and Life Cycle Cost Estimate, and briefings provided to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA management regarding the cost estimate. We assessed the cost estimating methodologies, assumptions, and results against leading practices for developing a comprehensive, accurate, well-documented, and credible cost estimate, identified in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. We also interviewed program officials responsible for developing and reviewing the cost estimate to understand their methodology, data, and approach for developing the estimate. We found that the cost data were sufficiently reliable. To assess the reliability of the May 2018 GMM program schedule, we evaluated documentation supporting the schedule, such as the integrated master schedule, acquisition program baseline, and Agile artifacts. We assessed the schedule documentation against leading practices for developing a comprehensive, well-constructed, credible, and controlled schedule, identified in GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide. We also interviewed GMM program officials responsible for developing and managing the program schedule to understand their practices for creating and maintaining the schedule. We noted in our report the instances where the quality of the schedule data impacted the reliability of the program’s schedule. For both the cost estimate and program schedule, we assessed each leading practice as: fully addressed—FEMA provided complete evidence that showed it implemented the entire practice area; substantially addressed—FEMA provided evidence that showed it implemented more than half of the practice area; partially addressed—FEMA provided evidence that showed it implemented about half of the practice area; minimally addressed—FEMA provided evidence that showed it implemented less than half of the practice area; not addressed—FEMA did not provide evidence that showed it implemented any of the practice area. Finally, we provided FEMA with draft versions of our detailed analyses of the GMM cost estimate and schedule. This was done to verify that the information on which we based our findings was complete, accurate, and up-to-date. Regarding our third objective, to determine the extent to which FEMA is addressing key cybersecurity practices for GMM, we reviewed documentation regarding DHS and FEMA cybersecurity policies and guidance, and FEMA’s authorization to operate for the program’s engineering and test environment. We evaluated the documentation against all six cybersecurity practices identified in the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Risk Management Framework. While NIST’s Risk Management Framework identifies six total practices, for reporting purposes, we combined two interrelated practices—selection of security controls and implementation of security controls—into a single practice. The resulting five practices were: categorizing the system based on security risk, selecting and implementing security controls, assessing security controls, obtaining an authorization to operate the system, and monitoring security controls on an ongoing basis. We obtained and analyzed key artifacts supporting the program’s efforts to address these risk management practices, including the program’s System Security Plan, the Security Assessment Plan and Report, Authorization to Operate documentation, and the program’s continuous monitoring documentation. We also interviewed officials from the GMM program office and FEMA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer, such as the GMM Security Engineering Lead, GMM Information System Security Officer, and FEMA’s Acting Chief Information Security Officer, regarding their efforts to assess, document, and review security controls for GMM. We assessed the evidence against the five practices to determine the extent to which the agency had addressed them. We then assessed each practice area as: fully addressed—FEMA provided complete evidence that showed it fully implemented the practice area; partially addressed—FEMA provided evidence that showed it partially implemented the practice area; not addressed—FEMA did not provide evidence that showed it implemented any of the practice area. To assess the reliability of data from the program’s automated security controls management tool, we interviewed knowledgeable officials about the quality control procedures used by the program to assure accuracy and completeness of the data. We also compared the data to other relevant program documentation on GMM security controls for the engineering and test environment. We found that some of the security controls data we examined were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of evaluating FEMA’s cybersecurity practices for GMM, and we noted in our report the instances where the accuracy of the data impacted the program’s ability to address key cybersecurity practices. We conducted this performance audit from December 2017 to April 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awards many different types of grants to state, local, and tribal governments and nongovernmental entities. These grants are to help communities prevent, prepare for, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from disasters and terrorist attacks. Agile software development is a type of incremental development that calls for the rapid delivery of software in small, short increments. The use of an incremental approach is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance as specified in its information technology (IT) Reform Plan, as well as the legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. Many organizations, especially in the federal government, are accustomed to using a waterfall software development model, which typically consists of long, sequential phases, and differs significantly from the Agile development approach. Agile practices integrate planning, design, development, and testing into an iterative lifecycle to deliver software early and often. Figure 7 provides a depiction of software development using the Agile approach, as compared to a waterfall approach. The frequent iterations of Agile development are intended to effectively measure progress, reduce technical and programmatic risk, and respond to feedback from stakeholders in changes to IT requirements more quickly than traditional methods. Despite these intended benefits, organizations adopting Agile must overcome challenges in making significant changes to how they are accustomed to developing software. The significant differences between Agile and waterfall development impact how IT programs are planned, implemented, and monitored in terms of cost, schedule, and scope. For example, in waterfall development, significant effort is devoted upfront to document detailed plans and all IT requirements for the entire scope of work at the beginning of the program, and cost and schedule can be varied to complete that work. However, for Agile programs the precise details are unknown upfront, so initial planning of cost, scope, and timing would be conducted at a high level, and then supplemented with more specific plans for each iteration. While cost and schedule are set for each iteration, requirements for each iteration (or increment) can be variable as they are learned over time and revised to reflect experiences from completed iterations and to accommodate changing priorities of the end users. The differences in these two software development approaches are shown in figure 8. Looking at figure 8, the benefit provided from using traditional program management practices such as establishing a cost estimate or a robust schedule, is not obvious. However, unlike a theoretical environment, many government programs may not have the autonomy to manage completely flexible scope, as they must deliver certain minimal specifications with the cost and schedule provided. In those cases, it is vital for the team to understand and differentiate the IT requirements that are “must haves” from the “nice to haves” early in the planning effort. This would help facilitate delivery of the “must-haves” requirements first, thereby providing users with the greatest benefits as soon as possible. In addition to the contact named above, the following staff made key contributions to this report: Shannin G. O’Neill (Assistant Director), Jeanne Sung (Analyst in Charge), Andrew Beggs, Rebecca Eyler, Kendrick Johnson, Thomas J. Johnson, Jason Lee, Jennifer Leotta, and Melissa Melvin.", "answers": ["FEMA, a component of DHS, annually awards billions of dollars in grants to help communities prepare for, mitigate the effects of, and recover from major disasters. However, FEMA's complex IT environment supporting grants management consists of many disparate systems. In 2008, the agency attempted to modernize these systems but experienced significant challenges. In 2015, FEMA initiated a new endeavor (the GMM program) aimed at streamlining and modernizing the grants management IT environment. GAO was asked to review the GMM program. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which FEMA is implementing leading practices for reengineering its grants management processes and incorporating needs into IT requirements; (2) assess the reliability of the program's estimated costs and schedule; and (3) determine the extent to which FEMA is addressing key cybersecurity practices. GAO compared program documentation to leading practices for process reengineering and requirements management, cost and schedule estimation, and cybersecurity risk management, as established by the Software Engineering Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and GAO. Of six important leading practices for effective business process reengineering and information technology (IT) requirements management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) fully implemented four and partially implemented two for the Grants Management Modernization (GMM) program (see table). Specifically, FEMA ensured senior leadership commitment, took steps to assess its business environment and performance goals, took recent actions to track progress in delivering IT requirements, and incorporated input from end user stakeholders. However, FEMA has not yet fully established plans for implementing new business processes or established complete traceability of IT requirements. Until FEMA fully implements the remaining two practices, it risks delivering an IT solution that does not fully modernize FEMA's grants management systems. While GMM's initial May 2017 cost estimate of about $251 million was generally consistent with leading practices for a reliable, high-quality estimate, it no longer reflects current assumptions about the program. FEMA officials stated in December 2018 that they had completed a revised cost estimate, but it was undergoing departmental approval. GMM's program schedule was inconsistent with leading practices; of particular concern was that the program's final delivery date of September 2020 was not informed by a realistic assessment of GMM development activities, and rather was determined by imposing an unsubstantiated delivery date. Developing sound cost and schedule estimates is necessary to ensure that FEMA has a clear understanding of program risks. Of five key cybersecurity practices, FEMA fully addressed three and partially addressed two for GMM. Specifically, it categorized GMM's system based on security risk, selected and implemented security controls, and monitored security controls on an ongoing basis. However, the program had not initially established corrective action plans for 13 medium- and low-risk vulnerabilities. This conflicts with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) guidance that specifies that corrective action plans must be developed for every weakness identified. Until FEMA, among other things, ensures that the program consistently follows the department's guidance on preparing corrective action plans for all security vulnerabilities, GMM's system will remain at increased risk of exploits. GAO is making eight recommendations to FEMA to implement leading practices related to reengineering processes, managing requirements, scheduling, and implementing cybersecurity. DHS concurred with all recommendations and provided estimated dates for implementing each of them."], "length": 14516, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "217e94f10e4c8ed084bf7e22681c4bbd75d5aa35d3480edd"}
{"input": "", "context": "As we have previously reported, 911 services have evolved from basic 911—which provided Americans with a universally recognized emergency number—to Enhanced 911 which also routes calls to the appropriate call center and provides information about the caller’s location and a call back number. NG911 represents the next evolution in 911 services by using IP-based technology to deliver and process 911 traffic. Under NG911, call centers will continue to receive voice calls and location information, but will also be able to accommodate emergency communications from the range of technologies in use today. In addition, NG911 systems provide call centers with enhanced capabilities to route and transfer calls and data, which could improve call centers’ abilities to handle overflow calls and increase information sharing with first responders. Generally speaking, 911 communications begin when a caller dials 911 using a landline, wireless, or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system. Once a 911 caller places an emergency call, a communications provider receives and routes the call to the appropriate call center, along with the caller’s phone number and location (i.e., street address for a landline caller, approximate geographic location for a wireless caller, and the subscriber’s address for VoIP). Calls and data may be routed to 911 call centers using legacy methods (i.e., routing calls across traditional telephone networks) or NG911 methods (i.e., routing calls and other data through IP-networks). Once the call reaches a call center, trained call takers and dispatchers determine the nature of the emergency and dispatch first responders, typically using a variety of equipment and systems, including call handling systems, mapping programs, and computer aided dispatch. Figure 1 illustrates the 911 communications and dispatch process. As illustrated in figure 1, NG911 systems use IP-networks capable of carrying voice plus large amounts of data. These emergency-services networks are typically deployed at the state or regional level with multiple call centers connecting to the network. However, the existence of an IP- network alone does not constitute an NG911 system. As defined by standards developed by the emergency communications community, an NG911 system should have the capability to, among other things: provide a secure environment for emergency communications; acquire and integrate additional data for routing and answering calls; process all types of emergency calls, including multimedia messages; transfer calls with added data to other call centers or first responders. While NG911 systems must possess certain capabilities, it is important to note that states and localities may make decisions about which capabilities they intend to use to best meet their needs. In addition, states and localities have the authority to make decisions about what NG911 equipment, systems, and vendors to use; thus, the configurations of these systems vary. According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, the transition to NG911 may require a variety of technical and operational changes to current 911 systems and processes. For example, technical changes can include upgrades to networks or installing new hardware or software in 911 call centers. Operational changes can include the need for additional training or the development of new policies and procedures (e.g., new procedures for processing or storing multimedia). These technical and operational changes may also have effects on 911 funding and state and local governance structures, which we will discuss in more detail later in this report. According to an FCC advisory body that examined NG911 systems architecture in 2016, while NG911 systems are implemented in a variety of ways at the state or local level, NG911 implementation can occur gradually and in phases. According to this model, NG911 implementation occurs on a continuum that begins with legacy 911 systems and ends with a fully deployed NG911 national end-state where all individual 911 call centers nationwide would be connected. The NG911 implementation model identifies activities that take place as part of the NG911 transition, many of which occur concurrently, such as: planning (e.g., conducting feasibility studies, preparing databases, establishing governance models); acquiring, testing, and implementing NG911 system elements (e.g., establishing an emergency-services IP-network, location-based call routing, processing multimedia); connecting call centers within a jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdictional end- state in which all call centers are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures); and connecting NG911 systems nationwide (i.e., national end-state in which all call centers in the nation are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures). In addition, because 911 services provide an essential function, the implementation of NG911 generally involves using both the legacy system and the NG911 system simultaneously for a period of time, according to the FCC advisory body, to ensure 911 services are not disrupted as new system elements are tested and implemented. Deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of 911 authorities at the state and local level. As we have previously reported, all 50 states and the District of Columbia collect—or have authorized local entities to collect—funding for 911 from telephone service subscribers, and methods within each state for collecting funds vary. FCC, as required by statute, reports to Congress annually on the states’ collection and distribution of 911 fees and charges. There are approximately 6,000 call centers nationwide that process 911 calls, often at the county or city level, and these centers can vary greatly in size and technical sophistication. The state and local governance structures that oversee 911 operations also vary by location. For example, we previously reported that some states collect fees or charges for 911 and administer a statewide 911 program. Other states authorize local entities to collect fees or charges for 911 and administer 911 programs at the local level. Still other states use a combination of these approaches. According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, historically, 911 authority has been coordinated and maintained locally with no requirement to coordinate with other jurisdictions. However, the transition to NG911 enables connection of 911 systems. Thus, as previously mentioned, the NG911 transition may require technological and operational changes, as well as changes to 911 policies and governance responsibilities for states and localities. While deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of entities at the state and local level, federal agencies—including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS—have responsibilities to support state and local implementation, including through facilitating coordination of activities among 911 stakeholders and administering federal grants, for example: NHTSA houses the National 911 Program as part of its Office of Emergency Medical Services (Office of EMS) to provide national leadership and coordination for the NG911 transition throughout the United States, as previously mentioned. According to NHTSA, the fiscal year 2017 budget for the National 911 Program was $2.74 million. Among other activities, which we will discuss later in this report, the National 911 Program surveys states on progress implementing NG911 and reports this survey data annually. FCC issues orders and regulations for 911 service providers on topics relevant to NG911, such as 911 reliability, location accuracy, and text- to-911. FCC also sponsors advisory bodies comprised of government and industry experts that study relevant topics and provide recommendations related to NG911, such as the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture and the Communications, Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council. While there are no federally mandated time frames for implementing NG911, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 requires specific actions of some federal agencies as outlined in table 1, below. In addition, according to the National 911 Program, as states and localities continue to implement NG911, and begin to explore interconnection with other states’ 911 systems, federal agencies may need to take steps to help ensure state NG911 networks are interoperable and connected. We will discuss actions taken by federal agencies to assist states and localities to implement NG911 later in this report. According to NHTSA’s most recent national survey, state and local progress implementing NG911 varies, and about half of all states reported being in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015. While a few states are well into statewide implementation, NHTSA officials told us that no state had completely implemented all NG911 functions. Additionally, as of the fall of 2017, none of the selected states we spoke with were processing multimedia—such as images or audio/video recordings—through their 911 systems due to concerns related to privacy, liability, and the ability to store and manage these types of data, among other things. The national survey data, based on responses from 45 states, measured the extent to which NG911 planning and acquisition of NG911 equipment and services were occurring, and the extent to which basic NG911 functions were operational at the state and local levels in 2015. Planning: This measure includes state and local NG911 plans for governance, funding, system components, and operations. In this context, system components refer to an emergency services IP-based network, NG911 software, system and information security, and databases, among other things, according to NHTSA’s survey. In total, 25 of 45 states reported having a state or at least one local NG911 plan in place; conversely, 18 states reported having no NG911 plan in place at either the state or local level—which may indicate they are in the early stages of planning for the NG911 transition or have not yet begun the transition to NG911. Acquisition: These measures identify states or local entities that have defined their NG911 needs and awarded contracts, and then installed and tested acquired NG911 components and services. Twenty-four states reported awarding at least one contract at the state or local level for NG911 components and services. Twenty-three states reported having installed and tested NG911 components and services at either the state or local level. NG911 services: This is a measure of 911 authorities that have some basic, functioning NG911 infrastructure in place. In total, 21 states reported having some level of basic NG911 services in place at the state or local level. Of these 21 states, 10 reported that all 911 authorities within the state were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls. Another 7 of these states reported that 25 percent or less of their state’s 911 authorities were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls. Federal officials, industry stakeholders, and state and local 911 officials we interviewed from nine states identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911, including challenges related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. Funding: State and local officials in four of nine selected states identified insufficient funding as one of the challenges they face in implementing NG911. Additionally, FCC, NHTSA, and industry reports noted that state and local financing strategies are generally insufficient to fully implement NG911. Specifically, these reports note that the need to provide new capital for NG911 implementation while simultaneously funding legacy operational costs during the transition can strain state and local funding. Limited funding: Officials in three states told us that their current funding may not be able to support the upfront costs of infrastructure and equipment acquisitions associated with the transition to NG911. Further, officials said they will need to simultaneously fund both the new NG911 and legacy 911 systems currently in operation until the NG911 systems are fully operational. To address these challenges, a Minnesota official told us about how the state leveraged economies of scale to reduce overall costs through cost sharing between multiple call centers and of call centers consolidating operations from 114 to 104 call centers. Additionally, a Virginia official told us that to cover the upfront costs of transitioning to NG911, the state plans to borrow from the state treasury and then repay the treasury with future-year fee collections. Fee diversion: Diversion of fees intended for 911 costs to non-911 activities may affect a state’s or locality’s ability to cover NG911 transition costs and necessitate identifying alternative funding sources. The FCC’s 2016 annual report on 911 fees indicates that for calendar year 2015, all but two of the states that responded to FCC’s 911 fee survey affirmed that their state or jurisdiction collects fees from phone users to support or implement 911 services. State and local authorities also determine how these 911 fees can be used. FCC’s report also indicated that eight states and Puerto Rico reported diverting a total of more than $220 million (or approximately 8.4 percent) of 911 fees collected to non-911 purposes. Some of these diverted funds were directed to other public safety programs, and others were diverted to either non-public safety or unspecified purposes. According to one state official, had it not been for 911 fees being diverted to non-911 purposes, funding would have been sufficient to cover the NG911 transition without having to go to the state legislature for additional funding. However, officials in the other eight selected states told us that either fee diversion was not an issue in their state or that the diversion of funds had not affected their state’s ability to implement NG911. Evolving technology and operations: Officials in eight states told us that the retirement of legacy infrastructure and the transition to IP-based systems introduces new technical and operational challenges for call centers and states, as well as for equipment and service providers. Interoperability: Officials in three selected states mentioned that connecting to neighboring networks—whether within or between states—could pose challenges. For example, officials mentioned that states and localities may have obtained different equipment, software applications, or service providers – all of which can make interconnections difficult. Officials in Maine and New Hampshire told us that differences in service providers can also be a challenge to seamlessly connecting to neighboring systems. In an instance where two states (Minnesota and North Dakota) have worked to connect their 911 systems, both states used the same service provider, which officials said allowed for fewer barriers to connection. Cyber risks: Officials in three states told us that the transition from a traditional system that only transmits voice traffic to an IP-based system that transmits voice and data traffic has significantly increased the risk of a cyber-attack. This can be a challenge because managing cyber risks is a new and evolving role for state and local 911 authorities. Approaching the transition to NG911 without managing these risks could result in disrupted or disabled call center operations and ultimately a delayed response to an emergency situation. Multimedia: Officials in three states mentioned potential implementation challenges related to accepting and processing multimedia such as audio recordings, images, and videos. More specifically, one official said they did not have procedures to manage or store these multimedia files once received. In addition, another official raised privacy and liability concerns. Call routing: One of the core services of an NG911 system is the ability to have calls routed to the appropriate call center based on a wireless caller’s physical location, instead of the location of the cellular tower that receives and transmits the call. An FCC-sponsored working group reported that there are several options for achieving this and each option has unique positive and negative aspects. One challenge officials in two states noted was that rather than a single, nationwide approach to routing these calls, state and local 911 authorities would need to work individually with the wireless carriers to determine how to best implement location-based call routing. Governance: FCC has noted that transitioning to NG911 will likely result in new roles and levels of coordination between state 911 authorities, local 911 authorities, 911 call centers, and 911 service providers. Further, relationships among authorities at the state and local level may change as states work to interconnect NG911 systems. State and local officials noted that these types of governance challenges can apply in a variety of situations, including within or between states. Evolving roles: As previously mentioned, 911 governance structures vary among states. These varying governance structures may pose different challenges. For example, some states have a centralized structure in which a single government agency is responsible for statewide 911 system’s administration and policy. Officials in two states told us that although they faced challenges transitioning to NG911, their states’ centralized 911 structure eased the transition in their states because there was uniformity in policy and technology, among other things, coming from a single statewide authority. In other states, 911 systems are primarily a local responsibility and organized with decentralized authorities and resources. In these instances, there may be specific challenges related to transitioning to an interconnected NG911 system. Such challenges may include the need for increased levels of coordination among numerous jurisdictions with potentially disparate organizational structures, levels of funding, and priorities. An official also noted that there are governance challenges related to connecting states and evolving relationships between 911 authorities and service providers. Informing decision makers: One of the challenges identified by officials in two states is differing levels of experience and understanding by state and local officials as to what NG911 priorities should be for timely implementation. To help with this understanding, the federal government is making efforts to educate state and local authorities on how to facilitate policymaker understanding as well as provide regular updates to stakeholders on recent NG911 developments. We discuss some of these efforts later in this report. While state and local entities have the primary responsibility for implementing NG911 technology and services, federal agencies are taking actions to assist state and local 911 entities to address NG911 implementation challenges. Actions taken include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders. More specifically, we identified selected activities that were taken by NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS that address some of the funding, technology, and governance challenges raised by state and local 911 stakeholders, for example: Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and NTIA, in consultation with FCC and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems. According to NHTSA officials, the cost study will present a nationwide view, rather than a state-by-state view, on the progress of NG911 implementation and its associated costs. Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services. In September 2017, NHTSA and NTIA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining implementing regulations for the grant program. NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018. Technology standards: The National 911 Program issued an annual guide in 2017 that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services. The guide provides a list of standards that have been recently updated and an analysis that identifies whether existing standards fully address NG911 processes and protocols. Cybersecurity guides: DHS issued a guide in 2016 that identified cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies. According to DHS officials, the National 911 Program provided input on this guide. In addition, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call-centers’ architecture issued a report in 2016 that provided a cybersecurity self-assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies. Governance plans: To address challenges related to the evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program issued a guide in 2016 that provided practices for states to consider when interconnecting NG911 networks, and DHS issued a guide in 2015 for emergency communications officials for establishing, assessing, and updating their governance structures. In addition, an FCC advisory body issued a report in 2016 that identified NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911. In addition to federal agency efforts to assist the state and local 911 community, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap. As part of this initiative, the National 911 Program plans to convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify tasks that need to be completed at the national level by the federal government and other public and private-sector organizations to support the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. Additional details regarding this planned activity are described in further detail later in this report. For additional information on federal actions to address state and local NG911 challenges, see appendix II. As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 activities, the National 911 Program has taken a variety of actions to assist the state and local 911 community, in collaboration with other federal agencies. However, the program lacks goals and performance measures to assess whether these activities are achieving desired results. National 911 Program officials stated that they initiate program activities based on feedback received from the 911 community. In addition, officials said the program’s activities fall within the tasks established in the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012. However, the National 911 Program does not have a means to assess its progress toward meeting its responsibilities established in the 2012 Act. National 911 Program officials said the Office of EMS—the office within NHTSA in which the program is housed—has a strategic plan, but it is outdated and does not contain specific goals or performance measures related to 911 or NG911 implementation. Officials said the Office of EMS has held preliminary discussions to begin updating its strategic plan by January 2019 and plans to include goals and performance measures related to 911 and NG911 services. Office of EMS officials told us the Office of EMS strategic plan will be jointly developed with the National 911 Program. However the Office of EMS had not yet developed a draft strategic plan during the time of our review. Federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in order to achieve desired results. According to these standards, an entity determines its mission, establishes specific measurable objectives, and formulates plans to achieve its objectives. These standards state that management sets objectives in order to meet the entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals and requirements of applicable laws and regulations. In addition, our work on leading practices for managing for results indicated that an agency’s strategic goals should also explain what results are expected from the agency and when to expect those results. Further, these goals form a basis for an entity to identify strategies to fulfill its mission and improve its operations to support the achievement of that mission. As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, the National 911 Program faces a complex and challenging task of assisting the 911 community while the nation’s 911 systems undergo a major transformation. However, without specific goals and related performance measures, the National 911 Program is unable to assess how well its activities are achieving results in relation to its responsibilities identified in the 2012 Act. As the National 911 Program and the Office of EMS consider creating a strategic plan, ensuring that the plan includes specific goals and related measures for the National 911 Program would help officials better understand whether the program’s activities are effectively assisting states and localities in transitioning to a fully integrated national NG911 system, and help identify any programmatic changes that might be needed. As previously mentioned, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap. This initiative will convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify national-level tasks that need to be completed by federal agencies and other organizations to realize a national, interconnected NG911 system. According to the National 911 Program, a list of the national-level tasks needed to advance NG911 implementation nationwide has not been created to date. In addition, state officials we spoke with said there are certain issues related to interoperability and cybersecurity that federal agencies need to address before states can connect their respective state NG911 systems. To address these issues, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued a request for proposal (RFP) in August 2017 for managing the roadmap development process and awarded a contract in September 2017. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out national-level tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap’s objectives. NHTSA’s NG911 roadmap RFP specifies that by identifying a list of national-level tasks that are developed and adopted by the 911 stakeholder community, the roadmap could serve as a blueprint to carry out these tasks and thereby ensure the interoperability of the nation’s NG911 system. However, the National 911 Program does not have plans for the entities participating in the development of the roadmap to be assigned roles and responsibilities for executing the roadmap’s national- level tasks. National 911 Program officials told us the National 911 Program does not plan to assign roles and responsibilities because NHTSA does not have the authority to require or assign tasks for other entities. Additionally, program officials view the simultaneous identification of tasks and assignments of responsibility for those tasks as a risk to facilitating a candid and productive discussion with entities participating in the roadmap initiative. However, officials stated it may be appropriate for agencies participating in the roadmap initiative to perform specific tasks after the roadmap is finalized. We have previously examined interagency collaborative mechanisms and identified certain key issues for federal agencies to consider when using these mechanisms to achieve results. Our prior work has found that following leading collaboration practices, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in collaboration, can enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies and provide an understanding of who will do what in support of meeting the aims of the collaborative group. As stated above, the RFP specifies that a roadmap developed by and adopted by 911 stakeholders could serve as a blueprint to carry out the roadmap’s tasks. Securing the commitment of agencies to assigned roles could help organize the collaborative group’s joint and individual efforts and thereby better facilitate decision making. As we have previously found, a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in an interagency effort—such as the execution of the roadmap’s tasks—may limit agencies’ abilities to effectively achieve shared objectives. Given the complexity of the task and the number of agencies that could be involved, following selected leading collaboration practices for the roadmap initiative—particularly with regard to collaborating with roadmap stakeholders to clarify their roles and responsibilities (whether during the creation of the task list or afterwards)—could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve the national-level tasks. While clarifying the roles and responsibilities of roadmap stakeholders for the execution of the roadmap’s tasks is an important collaborative step, the National 911 Program has additional responsibilities as the lead entity for the initiative. However, National 911 Program officials are unable to clearly articulate how the program will proceed following the completion of the roadmap. National 911 Program officials said without knowing the contents of the roadmap, it would be premature to specify how the roadmap’s national-level tasks would be completed. Officials stated that once the roadmap is completed, possible next steps may include identification of timelines, deadlines, and a mechanism for tracking progress, among other things, but officials stated that these steps are not required in the roadmap RFP. As stated above, federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in specific terms. According to these standards, management defines what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement. Without a clear plan for how the National 911 Program would take next steps to support the implementation of the roadmap’s objectives and tasks, the National 911 Program may not be prepared to take effective action once the roadmap is completed. We have previously found that having an implementation plan can assist agencies to better focus and prioritize goals and objectives, and align planned activities. Once the roadmap is completed, developing an implementation plan that details what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished will place the National 911 Program in a better position moving forward to support the completion of the national-level tasks. The current 911 system is undergoing a historic transition. With no federal requirement that states transition to NG911 services, federal leadership is critical to addressing interoperability challenges and promoting the goal of an interconnected national system. As the lead federal entity for fostering coordination and collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program plays a critical role in coordinating NG911 implementation efforts to improve the nation’s 911 services. However, this program—in collaboration with other federal agencies— faces a complex and challenging task to help move approximately 6,000 independent 911 call centers toward an interconnected national NG911 system. In addition, given that the NG911 transition is still in its early stages and is an ongoing effort, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of various federal actions to assist states and localities in the transition. In light of these challenges, without specific goals and related measures to assess effectiveness, the National 911 Program may be hindered in determining whether it is making progress towards its stated mission. Through the roadmap initiative, the National 911 Program has taken important first steps in identifying the need for actions at the national level, in order to fully realize the desired end-state of a national, interconnected NG911 system. However, while identifying needed next steps is essential, equally important to the collaborative effort’s success is (1) defining and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the entities best suited to undertake these actions, and (2) developing plans for how the National 911 Program will support implementation to achieve the roadmap’s objectives. If taken, these actions could help further NG911 implementation nationwide and help the National 911 Program and federal agencies in assisting states and localities to improve these lifesaving services. We are making the following three recommendations to the Administrator of NHTSA regarding the National 911 Program: develop specific program goals and performance measures related to NG911 implementation. (Recommendation 1) in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks over which each agency has jurisdiction. (Recommendation 2) develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the National NG911 Roadmap’s national-level tasks. (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and Homeland Security and FCC for their review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Transportation agreed with the recommendations. The Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Commerce and FCC had no comments. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Managing Director of the FCC, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Our objectives were to examine (1) progress states and localities are making to implement Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the challenges they have faced and (2) how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps. To describe state and local progress in implementing NG911 and background information on fee collection and costs, we analyzed select survey data elements from the 2016 National 911 Progress Report and the Eighth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) respectively. More specifically, we analyzed the most recent state-provided data (from calendar year 2015) related to the planning and implementation of NG911 at the state and local levels, as well as NG911 cost and 911-related revenue data. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing relevant documents and discussing data elements with staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data. We also conducted our own testing to check the consistency of the data. We found the data from both sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes to describe states’ progress in implementing NG911 and provide background on 911 fee collection and costs. While these data provide the best nationwide picture of NG911 implementation and fee collection, and are reliable for our purposes, there are some limitations on how the data can be used. Since we did not validate the state-reported responses, our findings based on these data are limited to what states reported. Additionally, regarding the 2016 National 911 Progress Report data, there are limitations to (1) making comparisons between states because states have different approaches to implementing NG911 and (2) ascertaining year-over-year progress because reporting is voluntary and states’ response rates can vary year to year. To describe implementation challenges that states and local authorities may be encountering, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 10 states as case studies, based upon a variety of factors, including reported progress in implementing NG911, statewide planning and coordination, reported number of annual 911 calls, whether states diverted 911 fees to other uses, and variation in geographic location. We selected these states, in part, based on their responses to the two aforementioned surveys. Based on the aforementioned criteria, we selected the following states to include as case studies: California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia. We reviewed documents and interviewed state officials from all of these states except Nevada about NG911 implementation progress, challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance needed. We contacted 911 officials in Nevada but did not receive responses. We also interviewed local officials in four of the selected states. While not generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our case studies provides examples of broader issues faced by states and localities in managing the NG911 transition. To determine how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and documentation of federal agency actions and plans, and our prior reports. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about federal actions taken and plans for next steps. To understand planning activities undertaken by NHTSA’s National 911 Program, and its planned project to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, we reviewed the National 911 Program’s internal planning documents, the program’s request for proposal to develop a national roadmap, the program’s written responses to our questions, and interviewed National 911 Program officials. In addition, we interviewed officials from national associations representing emergency-response- technology companies, wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency- communications entities, and groups representing deaf and hard-of- hearing consumers to gain their perspectives on federal actions taken and next steps. We assessed the National 911 Program’s strategic- planning activities against leading practices for performance management found in our prior work on strategic planning and goal setting and federal internal control standards. We assessed the National 911 Program’s planned activities for the national roadmap project against federal internal control standards and selected key practices to enhance interagency collaboration identified in our prior work. We conducted our work from January 2017 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Description of challenge State and local funding may not be sufficient to support costs associated with transitioning to NG911 equipment and infrastructure. Transitioning from legacy infrastructure to Internet Protocol-based systems presents technical and operational challenges such as interoperability and cybersecurity risks. Federal actions Grant resources: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National 911 Program issued on its website a list clarifying which of the fiscal year 2016 emergency-communications grants may be used for NG911 services. Program officials said they developed this list in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems and on the nationwide progress of implementing NG911 services. Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services. NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018. Funding mechanisms: An advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report in 2016 that identified common costs and funding mechanisms for 911 officials to consider. The report also introduced a 911 funding sustainment model designed for use by 911 officials to calculate their financial needs to support a transition to NG911 implementation. Guides on technology standards and procurement practices: In 2017, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued an annual guide on emergency- communications technology standards that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services. The National 911 Program issued another guide in 2016 that provides information on procuring goods and services related to NG911 such as practices for call centers to consider when developing their request for proposals and contracts. Examining emerging technology issues: In 2017, FCC tasked a public- private advisory council to recommend how FCC can promote the NG911 transition, enhance the reliability of NG911, and mitigate the threat of 911 outages. Prior to that tasking, the FCC advisory council issued a report in 2016 that explored location-based routing issues and discussed transition considerations from legacy 911 to NG911. NG911 cybersecurity guide and technical assistance: DHS, with input from NHTSA’s National 911 Program according to DHS officials, issued a guide in 2016 that identifies cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies. In addition, DHS provides NG911 technical assistance for states seeking assistance with strategic planning and technology integration. In a separate effort, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call center architecture issued a report in 2016 that provides a cybersecurity self- assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies. Description of challenge States may face a range of challenges related to evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities that could hinder NG911 implementation. Federal actions Guides on state and legislative planning: NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued guides on state 911 planning and legislative issues to consider for NG911 and awarded a contract in September 2017 to update those guides. In 2016, the National 911 Program issued a guidebased on the experiences of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that identifies practices to consider for states interconnecting NG911 networks across state lines. Exploring NG911 governance implementation issues: In 2016, an advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report that identifies NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911. In 2013, FCC also issued a report that details recommendations to Congress for transitioning from legacy 911 to NG911 networks. Guide on emergency communications governance structures: In 2015, DHS and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators issued a guide that provides characteristics of effective governance approaches and best practices for officials to establish, assess, and update their governance structures. In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Camilo Flores, Steven Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Kelly L. Rubin, Michael Sweet, Hai Tran, Marika Van Laan, and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies. However, the nation's legacy 911 system relies on aging infrastructure that is not designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a result, states and localities are upgrading to NG911, which offers improved capabilities, such as the ability to process images, audio files, and video. While deploying NG911 is the responsibility of state and local entities, federal agencies also support implementation, led by NHTSA's National 911 Program, which facilitates collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 stakeholders. GAO was asked to review NG911 implementation nationwide. This report examines: (1) state and local progress and challenges in implementing NG911 and (2) federal actions to address challenges and planned next steps. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and federal agency reports and plans. GAO also analyzed NHTSA's survey data on state 911 implementation for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were available, and interviewed federal officials, state and local officials from nine states (selected to represent different regions and various phases of NG911 implementation), and officials from industry and advocacy groups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National 911 Program's most recent national survey on Next Generation 911 (NG911) implementation indicated that about half of states were in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015, but that state and local progress varied. Specifically, 10 states reported that all 911 authorities in their state processed calls using NG911 systems; however, 18 states reported having no state or local NG911 transition plans in place—which may indicate these states were in the early phases of planning for the transition to NG911 or had not yet begun. GAO spoke with state and local 911 officials in 9 states, which were in various phases of implementing NG911, and found that none of the 9 selected states were accepting images, audio files, or video. State and local 911 officials identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911. Such challenges are related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. For example, officials in 3 states said that the current funding they collect from telephone service subscribers may not be sufficient to support NG911's transition costs while simultaneously funding the operation of existing 911 systems. Federal agencies—including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have responsibilities to support NG911 implementation, such as through coordinating activities and administering grants, and are taking actions to assist state and local entities in addressing challenges to NG911's implementation. Such actions include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders to explore emerging NG911 issues. For example, as the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, NHTSA's National 911 Program is developing resources on NG911 topics, such as federal funding and governance structures. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to facilitate the state and local transition to NG911, the program lacks specific performance goals and measures to assess its progress. Without such goals and measures, it is not clear to what extent the program is effectively achieving its mission. In 2018, the National 911 Program plans to establish an interagency initiative tasked with creating a National NG911 Roadmap. This roadmap is intended to identify next steps for the federal government in supporting the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a list of national-level tasks as part of its roadmap initiative, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out these tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap's objectives. Collaborating with the appropriate federal agencies to determine federal roles and responsibilities to carry out the roadmap's national-level tasks could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve those tasks. Furthermore, developing an implementation plan that details how the roadmap's tasks will be achieved would place the National 911 Program in a better position to effectively lead interagency efforts to implement NG911 nationwide. GAO recommends that NHTSA's National 911 Program develop performance goals and measures and, for the National NG911 Roadmap, determine agencies' roles and responsibilities and develop an implementation plan. NHTSA agreed with GAO's recommendations."], "length": 6694, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "00cee8bad9ec18d013af6d0e731f1bc7af22da0d06bf6d00"}
{"input": "", "context": "The Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988 established the foundation for the current U.S. policy to potentially provide federal payment for a portion of claims by third parties for injury, damage, or loss that results from a commercial launch or reentry accident. A stated goal of the act was to provide a competitive environment for the U.S. commercial space launch industry. The act also provided for, among other things, government protection against some losses—referred to as indemnification—while still minimizing the cost to taxpayers. All FAA- licensed commercial launches and reentries by U.S. companies, whether unmanned or manned and from the United States or overseas, are covered by federal indemnification for third-party damages that result from the launch or reentry. According to agency officials, in 2016 FAA issued five active licenses, which had an average third-party MPL of about $51 million and ranged from $10 million to $99 million. The amount of insurance coverage that FAA requires launch companies to purchase—the MPL value—is intended to reflect the greatest dollar amount of loss to third parties and the federal government for bodily injury and property damage that can be reasonably expected to result from a launch or reentry accident. FAA calculates separate MPL values for potential damages to third parties and the federal government. For each launch license that it issues, FAA determines MPL values for third parties with the intent of estimating the greatest dollar amount of losses that reasonably could be expected from a launch or reentry accident, which have no less than a 1 in 10 million chance of occurring. For damages to the federal government, FAA determines MPL values with the intent of estimating the greatest dollar amount of losses that reasonably could be expected from a launch or reentry accident, which have no less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of occurring. According to FAA, the agency defines these probability thresholds to estimate the federal government’s exposure to losses above the MPL. Agency officials said that the current probability thresholds are set such that losses are very unlikely to exceed launch companies’ private insurance and become potential costs for the government under CSLCA. FAA’s process for determining the MPL value for a launch or reentry license generally includes three elements: 1. Number of casualties. Estimating the number of third-party casualties involves adding the number of direct and secondary casualties that could result from a launch accident. Direct casualty estimates include serious injuries and deaths. Secondary casualties include those resulting from fires and collapsing buildings. 2. Cost of casualties. FAA uses $3 million as an estimate of the average loss per casualty, which is multiplied by the number of estimated casualties. 3. Property damage. FAA applies a predetermined factor—which it recently changed from 50 percent to 25 percent—to the estimated cost of casualties to derive estimated losses from property damage. The total MPL is equal to the estimated cost of casualties plus property damage. FAA has revised two components of its MPL methodology since our 2012 report. For example, in April 2016, the agency adopted a new method for estimating the number of casualties, known as the risk profile method. This method uses different tools to simulate a range of possible scenarios to create a distribution of potential casualty numbers and the simulated probability of different levels of casualty numbers. The risk profile method replaced FAA’s “overlay method,” which was a method it had used since the early 1990s which the agency said did not work well for launches of small launch vehicles in remote areas, or for reentries. In addition, FAA reduced the factor it uses to estimate losses due to property damage, based on tests of a new process for estimating such losses that showed the previous factor was too high. We have previously reviewed FAA’s MPL methodology in 2012 and 2017. In 2012 we examined the U.S. government’s indemnification policy, the federal government’s potential costs for indemnification, and the effects of ending indemnification on the competitiveness of U.S. launch companies, among other aspects of FAA’s MPL methodology. In 2017 we examined the extent to which FAA had revised its MPL methodology since our 2012 report to address previously cited weaknesses and the potential effect of any changes to that methodology on financial liabilities for the federal government. The findings and recommendations of those reports, including any unaddressed weaknesses, are discussed later in this report. CSLCA required FAA to evaluate its MPL methodology incorporating three requirements, but the agency’s report did not fully address these requirements. First, the act required FAA to ensure a balance of risk between launch companies and the federal government. However, agency officials told us that they did not re-evaluate the probability thresholds—which are used to divide the risk of loss between launch companies and the federal government—as part of evaluating its MPL methodology when implementing the risk profile method due to resource constraints. Second, the act required FAA to consider the cost impact of implementing an updated MPL methodology, but the agency did not evaluate the impact of implementing its revised methodology on the direct costs to launch companies (insurance premiums) and to the federal government (indemnification liability). Third, the act required FAA to consult with the commercial space sector and insurance providers in evaluating its MPL, but they did not consult such parties in response to the act. Without fully addressing CSLCA’s mandated requirements, FAA cannot ensure that the federal government is not exposed to greater liability costs than intended or that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary. In its report, FAA states that implementing an updated MPL methodology in April 2016—the risk profile method—helps ensure that the federal government is not exposed to greater liability costs than intended and that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary, as required under CSLCA. Further, agency officials told us that their updated methodology is technically more valid and improves their ability to avoid overestimating MPL values (which can cause launch companies to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary) or significantly underestimating MPL values (which can expose the federal government to greater costs than intended). While an improved model may provide a more realistic calculation of the MPL, by changing the resulting estimates it can also change the balance between the federal government’s exposure to liability costs and the amount of insurance launch companies are required to purchase. For example, if the more realistic results produced by the revised methodology increased the MPL estimates, this would increase insurance costs for the launch companies and reduce the federal government’s exposure, thereby shifting the balance of costs between the two and suggesting a reevaluation of the thresholds. In addition, FAA officials told us that they had not reevaluated the probability thresholds upon implementing the revised MPL methodology, although defining these thresholds is their primary mechanism for adjusting the balance of risk between launch companies and the federal government. Agency officials acknowledged that an examination of the thresholds’ continued appropriateness would be warranted in the future. However, they told us that changing the probability thresholds would require significant effort because it would require them to change federal regulations and that resources are currently allocated to other rulemaking priorities. Nevertheless, without evaluating the appropriateness of the probability threshold as part of the mandated evaluation of the MPL methodology, FAA cannot ensure that the federal government is not exposed to greater liability costs than intended or that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary. CSLCA also required FAA to consider the cost impact on both the commercial space launch industry and the federal government of implementing an updated MPL methodology. In its report to Congress, the agency discussed indirect costs to launch applicants and the federal government. For example, FAA discussed indirect data burden costs on launch company applicants and FAA analysts associated with the agency’s risk profile method implementation. The report states that the risk profile method requires more data from a launch applicant than the previous method, but that the added burden is minimal because the information is similar to the type of information required by FAA for a risk analysis. Agency officials also said that the risk profile method requires more of an FAA analyst’s time than the overlay method, but that the added burden is minimal because the work done by FAA on risk analysis provides much of the foundation for an MPL analysis. However, FAA’s report did not include an evaluation of the direct costs to launch companies and the federal government of implementing an updated MPL methodology. The report identifies the direct cost to the launch industry as insurance premiums, and the direct cost to the federal government include potential indemnification payments. Agency officials also told us that the agency does not track commercial space launch insurance costs, and that they do not have meaningful insights on insurance premiums paid by commercial launch companies. FAA officials told us that they only have a general notion of insurance premiums because the industry is reluctant to share such information. FAA officials also told us that, outside of the work done for the report, they have not evaluated the economic implications for launch companies of implementing an updated MPL methodology. Without evaluating direct costs to both the launch companies and the federal government, FAA will be limited in its ability to consider the impact of the cost to both the industry and the federal government of implementing an updated methodology. Although CSLCA required FAA to consult with the commercial space sector and insurance providers in evaluating its MPL methodology for the mandated report, it obtained limited input. For example, FAA officials told us that they obtained input from their Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) in April 2016 about what to include in their report to Congress, but did not consult with the commercial space sector and insurance providers to evaluate their MPL methodology in response to CSLCA. FAA officials also said that, to respond to CSLCA’s consultation requirement, they did not think they needed to repeat the consultations they took in 2013. In January 2013, the agency solicited input from COMSTAC’s Business/Legal Working Group about how to best conduct a review of FAA’s methodology for calculating MPL, in response to our July 2012 report. FAA also briefed the Business/Legal Working Group in May 2013 to solicit input on MPL methodologies, including the risk profile method. In the January 2013 meeting, a COMSTAC member suggested several contractors for a study by outside experts of the complete MPL methodology, and FAA subsequently hired one of these contractors to develop the risk profile method that it implemented in April 2016. However, the agency did not solicit input from COMSTAC about its risk profile methodology prior to its April 2016 implementation or following CSLCA’s November 2015 mandated evaluation. As a result, FAA lacks input on the effect of its revised MPL methodology on launch companies and the federal government, making it difficult to evaluate the balance of risk between the two. Our 2012 report identified concerns with all three components of FAA’s MPL methodology: estimating the number of casualties, estimating the cost of casualties, and deriving estimated property damage costs from estimated casualty costs. In that report we recommended that the agency reassess its methodology, including the reasonableness of several key elements. As noted in our 2017 report, FAA has since made improvements to its methodology. However, it still has not yet updated the cost of a casualty. In addition, in our 2017 report we also noted that there are instances where deriving estimated property damage from estimated casualty costs is inappropriate. As of November 2017, FAA does not have guidance to identify such instances or to guide decisions on which tools to use in developing the MPL estimate. FAA has taken steps designed to improve two of three elements of its MPL methodology, including revising its methodology for estimating the number of potential casualties for a given launch and changing the factor it uses to derive estimated property damage from estimated casualties. However, the agency has not updated the third element, the amount it uses for the cost of an individual casualty, leaving a previously identified weakness unaddressed. Our 2012 report raised concerns with each of the three components of FAA’s MPL calculation methodology. First, we found that FAA’s method for estimating the number of casualties involved use of a single loss scenario instead of applying the insurance industry’s standard practice of catastrophe modeling, and that the agency’s method might significantly understate the number of potential casualties. Catastrophe modeling, unlike the single-loss approach, generally estimates losses by using various tools to simulate tens of thousands of scenarios to create a distribution of potential losses and the simulated probability of different levels of loss. Second, we reported that FAA had been using an outdated and likely understated figure of $3 million to estimate the cost of a single casualty—including injury or death—which Office of Commercial Space Transportation officials said has not been updated since they began using it in 1988. Third, we reported that the agency’s approach of estimating potential property damage by adding a flat 50 percent to the estimated casualty damage could lead to estimates that were too high in some cases. Given these weaknesses, we recommended that FAA reassess its MPL methodology, including assessing the reasonableness of the cost-of- casualty amount and other assumptions used. Because the agency took actions to assess its MPL methodology, we closed the recommendation as implemented. In March 2017 we reported that FAA had taken steps to address weaknesses in two of these three areas. Specifically, we reported that FAA’s adoption of the risk profile method in April 2016 had improved its estimates of the number of potential casualties associated with a particular license launch. In addition, we reported that the agency had revised the factor it uses to estimate losses from property damage in the MPL calculation from 50 percent to 25 percent. This change has resulted in property damage estimates that FAA officials believe are still conservative but more realistic than previous estimates. However, in our March 2017 report we also determined that FAA had not yet addressed weaknesses in the cost-of-casualty amount we had previously identified; despite the conclusion by a contractor it had hired to study the cost-of-casualty that it was too low. Agency officials told us that they had not addressed this weakness because of other priorities. Given the significance of the cost-of-casualty amount to the MPL calculations, we recommended that FAA prioritize the development of a plan to address the identified weakness in the cost-of-casualty amount, including setting time frames for action, and update the amount based on current information. In October 2017, FAA officials told us that they had not yet updated the cost-of-casualty because they have continued to prioritize completing other work with their limited resources, such as reviewing launch applications and fulfilling other safety responsibilities. As a result, our recommendation remains open. FAA officials told us that they have identified potential steps to update the cost-of-casualty amount, including seeking public input on whether and how to revise the amount, but that they do not expect to make a decision on whether to make any changes to the cost-of-casualty amount until June 30, 2018, at the earliest. FAA officials told us that in order to prioritize the development of a plan to address the identified weakness in the cost-of-casualty amount they will need to consult with both the commercial space and insurance industries about the necessity and implications of any potential increase in the cost-of-casualty amount. Agency officials said that they plan to do such consultations through COMSTAC. However, because COMSTAC was just reestablished in June 2017 after not having been active since November 2016 and new members had not been approved as of October 2017, the anticipated decision date of June 2018 could be further delayed. As we reported in March 2017, an understated cost-of-casualty amount can lead to an inaccurate loss calculation, which in turn understates the amount of insurance a launch company must obtain. This could increase the potential exposure to the federal government, as the insurance amount would be less than the potential losses associated with the launch activity and the property would be inadequately protected. Because of this potential exposure, we maintain that addressing this weakness is a priority. As noted above, in our 2012 report we raised concerns about the first element of FAA’s MPL methodology, which is estimating the number of potential casualties. FAA officials said that they have implemented two tools for estimating the number of potential casualties, and that each tool requires a different level of resources and is more appropriate for different launch scenarios. The Range Risk Analysis Tool creates physics-based simulations of possible accidents using launch vehicle data, such as launch trajectory and types of failures, and assigns each simulated accident a probability of occurrence based on the failure rates of the different elements of the launch vehicle. According to agency officials, the Range Risk Analysis Tool is a comprehensive, high-fidelity tool and is the most appropriate tool for coastal launch sites, which are often located in heavily populated areas, and is labor intensive. The Risk Estimator Sub- orbital and Orbital Launch Vehicle and Entry tool, which in contrast to the Range Risk Analysis Tool, is a medium-fidelity tool that can be used for low-risk launches, such as launch sites located in very sparsely populated areas and reentry operations that do not need the use of a high-fidelity tool. According to FAA, this tool significantly reduces the time required to estimate the risk from launch and reentry vehicle operations. In our 2017 report, we also reiterated that there are cases where the third element of FAA’s methodology, deriving estimated property damage from estimated casualties, could lead to misleading MPL calculations. Specifically, in March 2017 we reported that estimating losses from property damage as a percentage of losses from casualties could lead to overestimates. For example, FAA’s contractor found that, if a launch accident affected a residential area, the agency’s practice of estimating property damage based on casualties would likely overstate property damages because residential structures have relatively low values compared to losses from casualties. We also reported in March 2017 that in some accidents the number of casualties may be low but property losses could still be very large, in which case FAA’s estimating property losses based on casualties would likely understate potential property damage. For example, a launch vehicle could strike an unoccupied structure that is very expensive, such as a neighboring launch complex. Agency officials said that while deriving property losses from casualty losses is a simpler method that may be an effective use of limited FAA resources, it could be inappropriate in scenarios where the number of casualties might be low but property losses could still be very large. In October 2017, agency officials said that FAA had not developed guidance for determining, for a given launch license, which of the available tools would be most appropriate to estimate the number of potential casualties, and whether it would be more appropriate to estimate property losses separately rather than derive them from estimated casualties. While FAA officials said they believe their current decision process is adequate and that they do not need more formal guidance at this time, they also told us that they were in the process of developing internal guidance on the most appropriate tool to use for future launches. The officials said that they did not have a projected completion date for the guidance, primarily because the agency has other priorities and resource limitations. As noted earlier, these priorities include reviewing commercial space launch license applications and managing program safety. Federal internal control standards state that, as part of an entity’s risk assessment component, management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks to achieving objectives. For example, the standards state that management should design control activities in response to the entity’s objectives and risks to achieve an effective internal control system. Without such guidance, FAA could face challenges in ensuring that it is using the most appropriate method to calculate an MPL for a given launch and is making the most efficient use of its resources. Such guidance could become more important as the number of commercial space launches increases, potentially creating greater demands on its resources. We have previously reported that the commercial space launch industry has experienced significant growth in the number and complexity of launches in the past half-decade. FAA has also reported that its licensed launches have increased 60 percent and industry revenue has increased 471 percent since 2012. FAA’s MPL methodology is critical in balancing the encouragement of the U.S. commercial space industry with the need to manage the federal government’s risk exposure because it determines how much risk each party will bear for third-party damages resulting from potential space launch accidents. However, despite changes to the methodology, the probability threshold that the agency uses to achieve this balance of risk has been the same since the 1990s, and has not been reviewed for appropriateness. In addition, while FAA evaluated the effect of its MPL methodology on the indirect costs of launch companies and the federal government, it did not similarly evaluate direct costs. Further, although FAA has obtained input from some stakeholders on certain aspects of its MPL methodology, it has not consulted with launch providers and insurance companies to evaluate effects on key potential costs to launch companies and the federal government, as required under CSLCA. FAA officials told us that resource issues and pursuing other priorities have prevented them from taking these actions. However, the longstanding nature of these issues, as well as their importance in determining the federal government’s financial exposure, makes their completion a priority. FAA has also begun improving other aspects of its MPL process, but important actions remain incomplete. For example, the cost of a casualty, a key component of the methodology, has not been updated since 1988. While FAA has identified potential steps to update this amount, it has not implemented these steps and our March 2017 recommendation to prioritize the updating of this amount remains open. Further, agency officials said they have begun to develop internal guidance on how to determine which methodological tools should be used for a given launch, but are not sure when this process will be completed. These are important steps to help ensure the validity of the MPL methodology and the results obtained for each launch, which in turn determine the balance between the amount of insurance launch companies are required to purchase and the potential financial exposure for the federal government. We are making the following four recommendations to FAA: The FAA Administrator should fulfill the CSLCA mandate to include ensuring a balance of risk between the federal government and launch companies as part of FAA’s MPL methodology evaluation by reexamining the current probability thresholds. (Recommendation 1) The FAA Administrator should fulfill the CSLCA mandate to analyze the cost impact of implementing its revised MPL methodology by evaluating the impact on the direct costs of launch companies and the federal government. (Recommendation 2) The FAA Administrator should fulfill the CSLCA mandate to evaluate its MPL methodology in consultation with the commercial space sector and insurance providers by consulting with those entities on the cost impact of its revised MPL methodology, including an updated cost-of-casualty amount, on the launch industry and the federal government. (Recommendation 3) The FAA Administrator should establish an estimated completion date for developing and implementing a plan to establish guidance on the most appropriate MPL methodologies and tools to use for each launch. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for their review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix I, the Department of Transportation concurred with our recommendations. The Department of Transportation also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this work, please contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. In addition to the contact named above, Patrick Ward (Assistant Director), Jessica Artis, Isidro Gomez (Analyst in Charge), Courtney La Fountain, Maureen Luna-Long, Jessica Sandler, Jennifer Schwartz, Joseph Silvestri, and Shana Wallace made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["The federal government shares liability risks with the commercial space launch industry for accidents that result in damages to third parties or federal property. This arrangement requires space launch companies to have a specific amount of insurance to cover these damages. The government is potentially liable for damages above that amount, up to a cap GAO estimated to be $3.1 billion in 2017, subject to appropriations in advance. CSLCA, enacted in 2015, directed the Department of Transportation, of which FAA is a part, to evaluate its MPL methodology and, if necessary, develop a plan to update that methodology. The act also included a provision requiring GAO to assess FAA's evaluation and any actions needed to update the methodology. This report discusses the extent to which (1) FAA's evaluation report addresses the requirements in CSLCA and (2) FAA has addressed previously identified weaknesses in the MPL methodology. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed FAA on its loss methodology evaluation and actions to address weaknesses. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) report evaluating its maximum probable loss (MPL) methodology did not fully address the evaluation and consultation requirements specified by the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA). Balance of Risk. CSLCA required FAA to include ensuring that the federal government is not exposed to greater indemnification costs and that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary as a result of FAA's MPL methodology. FAA said that it ensured this balance by improving its methodology, but it did not reevaluate its probability thresholds after revising its methodology. These thresholds are used to divide the risk of loss between launch companies and the government. Impact on Costs. The act required FAA to consider the costs to both the industry and the federal government of implementing an updated methodology. FAA's report discussed the impact on indirect costs, such as data collection, but did not discuss direct costs: insurance premiums for launch companies and indemnification liability for the federal government. Consultation. The act also required FAA to consult with the commercial space sector and insurance providers in evaluating its MPL methodology in accordance with the preceding requirements. While the agency consulted with some stakeholders, these consultations were limited in scope. FAA officials said they have not been able to take the actions needed to fully satisfy the mandated elements because of issues such as resource limitations and the lack of available data. However, by not resolving these issues, FAA lacks assurance that launch companies are not purchasing more insurance than needed or that the federal government is not being exposed to greater indemnification costs than expected. FAA has addressed two of three previously identified weaknesses in its MPL methodology but has not yet dealt with the remaining weakness. Specifically, the agency has revised its methodology for estimating the number of potential casualties for a launch and changed the factor it uses to derive estimated property damage from estimated casualties. However, FAA has not updated the amount used for the cost of an individual casualty. GAO recommended in a March 2017 report (GAO-17-366) that FAA update this amount. Not doing so could understate the amount of insurance launch companies are required to purchase, exposing the federal government to excess risk. GAO also determined that while FAA has two tools and methods it can use in making its MPL estimates, it does not have guidance on determining which are most appropriate for a given launch scenario. For example, one tool is more comprehensive but also labor intensive to use, while the other is inappropriate for certain launch scenarios and could result in misleading MPL amounts. Officials said they have begun to create such guidance but do not have an estimated completion date. Without such guidance, FAA cannot ensure that the most appropriate MPL methodology is used for each launch. FAA should fully address mandated requirements in evaluating its MPL—probability thresholds, direct costs, and stakeholder consultations— and establish an estimated completion date for developing guidance on tools and methods to use for specific launch scenarios. The Department of Transportation concurred with the recommendations, and provided technical comments."], "length": 4125, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "a4a543df9ee25924cdf5f2f108147d2d11682f7611d612e2"}
{"input": "", "context": "Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at sea that have resulted in serious damage to Navy ships and the loss of 17 sailors (see figure 1). Three of the four at sea mishaps that have occurred—two collisions and one grounding—have involved ships homeported overseas in Yokosuka, Japan. Appendix II provides a summary of major mishaps for Navy ships at sea in fiscal years 2009 through 2017. The Navy currently has 277 ships, a 17 percent reduction from the 333 ships it had in 1998. Over the past two decades, as the number of Navy ships has decreased, the number of ships deployed overseas has remained roughly constant at about 100 ships; consequently, each ship is being deployed more to maintain the same level of presence. We reported in September 2016 that the Navy, along with the other military services, had been reporting persistently low readiness levels. The Navy attributes these, in part, to the increased deployment lengths needed to meet the continuing high demand for its aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships. For example, the deployment lengths for carrier strike groups had increased from an average of 6.4 months during the period of 2008 through 2011 to a less sustainable 9 months for three carrier strike groups that were deployed in 2015. In 2016, the Navy extended the deployments of the Harry S Truman and Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Groups to 8 and 8.5 months, respectively. In addition, the Navy has had to shorten, eliminate, or defer training and maintenance periods to support these high deployment rates. These decisions have resulted in declining ship conditions across the fleet and have increased the amount of time required for the shipyards to complete maintenance on these ships. Lengthened maintenance periods, in turn, compress the time that ships are available for training and operations. As we previously reported, to help meet the operational demands using its existing inventory of ships, the Navy has assigned more of its surface combatants and amphibious ships to overseas homeports. Since 2006, the Navy has doubled the percentage of the fleet assigned to overseas homeports. In 2006, 20 ships were homeported overseas (7 percent of the fleet); today, 40 ships are homeported overseas (14 percent of the fleet) in Japan, Spain, Bahrain, and Italy; and an additional destroyer will be homeported in Yokosuka, Japan in 2018 (see figure 2). According to the Navy, homeporting ships overseas is an efficient method for providing forward presence and rapid crisis response. Our prior work confirms that having ships homeported overseas provides additional presence, but it comes at a cost. For example, we found in May 2015 that homeporting ships overseas results in higher operations and support costs than homeporting ships in the United States. In addition, the operational schedules the Navy uses for overseas-homeported ships limit dedicated training and maintenance periods, resulting in difficulty keeping crews fully trained and ships maintained. In fact, the primary reason that Navy ships homeported overseas provide more deployed time than ships homeported in the United States is that the Navy reduces their training and maintenance periods in order to maximize their operational availability. Ships homeported overseas do not operate within the traditional fleet response plan cycles that apply to U.S.-based ships. Since the ships are in permanent deployment status during their time homeported overseas, they do not have designated ramp-up and ramp- down maintenance and training periods built into their operational schedules (see figure 3). Navy officials told us that because the Navy expects these ships to be operationally available for the maximum amount of time, their intermediate and depot-level maintenance are executed through more frequent, shorter maintenance periods or deferred until after they return to a U.S. homeport—generally after 7 to 10 years overseas. In May 2015, we also found that high operational tempo for ships homeported overseas limits the time for crew training when compared with training time for ships homeported in the United States. Navy officials told us that U.S.-based crews are completely qualified and certified prior to deploying from their U.S. homeports, with few exceptions. In contrast, the high operational tempo of ships homeported overseas had resulted in what Navy personnel called a “train on the margins” approach, a shorthand way to say there was no dedicated training time set aside for the ships so crews trained while underway or in the limited time between underway periods. We found that, at the time of our 2015 review, there were no dedicated training periods built into the operational schedules of the cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships homeported in Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan. As a result, these crews did not have all of their needed training and certifications. We recommended that the Navy develop and implement a sustainable operational schedule for all ships homeported overseas. DOD concurred with this recommendation and reported in 2015 that it had developed revised operational schedules for all ships homeported overseas. However, when we contacted DOD to obtain updated information in August 2017, U.S. Pacific Fleet officials stated that the revised operational schedules for the cruisers and destroyers homeported in Japan were still under review and had not been employed. As of June 2017, 37 percent of the warfare certifications for cruiser and destroyer crews homeported in Japan had expired, and over two-thirds of the expired certifications—including mobility-seamanship and air warfare—had been expired for 5 months or more. This represents more than a fivefold increase in the percentage of expired warfare certifications for these ships since our May 2015 report. The Navy’s Surface Force Readiness Manual states that the high operational tempo and frequent tasking of ships homeported overseas requires that these ships always be prepared to execute complex operations and notes that this demand for continuous readiness also means that ships homeported overseas should maintain maximum training, material condition, and manning readiness. With respect to the material condition of the ships, we found in May 2015 that casualty reports—incidents of degraded or out-of-service equipment—nearly doubled over the 2009 through 2014 time frame, and the condition of overseas-homeported ships decreased even faster than that of U.S.-based ships (see figure 4). The Navy uses casualty reports to provide information on the material condition of ships in order to determine current readiness. For example, casualty report data provide information on equipment or systems that are degraded or out of service, the lack of which will affect a ship’s ability to support required mission areas. In 2015, Navy officials acknowledged an increasing number of casualty reports on Navy ships and a worsening trend in material ship condition. They stated that equipment casualties require unscheduled maintenance and have a negative effect on fleet operations, because there is an associated capability or capacity loss. In our May 2015 report, we recommended that the Navy develop a comprehensive assessment of the long-term costs and risks to its fleet associated with the Navy’s increasing reliance on overseas homeporting to meet presence requirements; make any necessary adjustments to its overseas presence based on this assessment; and reassess these risks when making future overseas homeporting decisions. DOD concurred with this recommendation, but, as of August 2017, it has not conducted an assessment, even though it has continued to increase the number of ships homeported overseas. In the early 2000s, the Navy made several changes to its process for determining the size and composition of ship crews that may contribute to sailor overwork and create readiness and safety risks. These changes were intended to drive down crew sizes in order to save on personnel costs. However, as we reported in May 2017, these changes were not substantiated with analysis and may be creating readiness and safety risks. With fewer sailors operating and maintaining surface ships, the material condition of the ships declined, and we found that this decline ultimately contributed to an increase in operating and support costs that outweighed any savings on personnel (see figure 5). The Navy eventually reassessed and reversed some of the changes it had made during this period—known as “optimal manning”—but it continued to use a workweek standard that does not reflect the actual time sailors spend working and does not account for in-port workload—both of which may be leading to sailors being overworked. Additionally, we found that heavy workload does not end after ships return to port. Crews typically operate with fewer sailors while in port, so those crew members remaining must cover the workload of multiple sailors, causing additional strain and potential overwork. In 2014, the Navy conducted a study of the standard workweek and identified significant issues that could negatively affect a crew’s capabilities to accomplish tasks and maintain the material readiness of ships, as well as crew safety issues that might result if crews slept less to accommodate workload that was not accounted for. The Navy study found that sailors were on duty 108 hours a week, exceeding their weekly on-duty allocation of 81 hours. This on-duty time included 90 hours of productive work—20 hours per week more than the 70 hours that are allotted in the standard workweek. This, in turn, reduced the time available for rest and resulted in sailors spending less time sleeping than was allotted, a situation that the study noted could encourage a poor safety culture. Moving forward, the Navy will likely face manning challenges, especially given its current difficulty in filling authorized positions, as it seeks to increase the size of its fleet by as much as 30 percent over its current size. Navy officials stated that even with manpower requirements that accurately capture all workload, the Navy will be challenged to fund these positions and fill them with adequately trained sailors at current personnel levels. Figure 6 shows the Navy’s projected end strength and fleet size. In our May 2017 report, we found that the Navy’s guidance does not require that the factors it uses to calculate manpower requirements be reassessed periodically or when conditions change, to ensure that these factors remain valid and that crews are appropriately sized. We made several recommendations to address this issue, including that the Navy should (1) reassess the standard workweek, (2) require examination of in- port workload, (3) develop criteria to reassess the factors used in its manpower requirements process, and (4) update its ship manpower requirements. DOD concurred with our recommendations, stating that it is committed to ensuring that the Navy’s manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet. As of August 2017, DOD had not yet taken any actions to implement these recommendations. We believe that, until the Navy makes the needed changes, its ships may not have the right number and skill mix of sailors to maintain readiness and prevent overworking its sailors. To address its persistently low readiness levels, the Navy began implementing a revised operational schedule in November 2014, which it referred to as the optimized fleet response plan. This plan seeks to maximize the employability of the existing fleet while preserving adequate time for maintenance and training, providing continuity in ship leadership and carrier strike group assignments, and restoring operational and personnel tempos to acceptable levels. The Navy’s implementation of the optimized fleet response plan—and readiness recovery more broadly—is premised on adherence to deployment, training, and maintenance schedules. However, in May 2016, we found that the Navy was having difficulty in implementing its new schedule as intended. Both the public and private shipyards were having difficulty completing maintenance on time, owing primarily to the poor condition of the ships after more than a decade of heavy use, deferred maintenance, and the Navy’s inability to accurately predict how much maintenance they would need. We reported that in 2011 through 2014 only 28 percent of scheduled maintenance for surface combatants was completed on time and just 11 percent was completed on time for aircraft carriers. We updated these data as of August 2017 to include maintenance availabilities completed through the end of fiscal year 2016 and found continued difficulty completing maintenance on time for key portions of the Navy fleet (see figure 7): Aircraft Carriers (CVNs): In fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 18 of 21 (86 percent) aircraft carriers resulted in a total of 1,103 lost operational days—days that ships were not available for operations—the equivalent of losing the use of 0.5 aircraft carriers each year. Surface Combatants (DDGs and CGs): In fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 107 of 169 (63 percent) surface combatants resulted in a total of 6,603 lost operational days—the equivalent of losing the use of 3.0 surface combatants each year. Submarines (SSNs, SSBNs, and SSGNs): In fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 39 of 47 (83 percent) submarines resulted in a total of 6,220 lost operational days—the equivalent of losing the use of 2.8 submarines each year. Navy officials are aware of the challenges faced by both the public and private shipyards and have taken steps to address the risks these pose to maintenance schedules, including hiring additional shipyard workers and improving their maintenance planning processes. However, Navy officials have told us that it will take time for these changes to bring about a positive effect. For example, as of May 2016, data on the public shipyards’ workforce showed that 32 percent of all employees had fewer than 5 years of experience. According to Navy officials, this workforce inexperience negatively affects the productivity of the shipyards, and it will take several years for them to attain full productivity. Just last week, we issued another report, prepared in response to direction from this committee, examining the ability of the Navy’s public shipyards to support the Navy’s readiness needs. We found that capacity limitations as well as the poor condition of the shipyards’ facilities and equipment contributed to the maintenance delays we discussed earlier and were hindering the shipyards’ ability to support the Navy. Specifically, we found that the shipyards will be unable to support 73—or about one-third—of 218 maintenance periods planned over the next 23 years. In addition, this estimate did not factor in planned increases to the fleet. We made three recommendations, with which the Navy agreed to take steps to improve its management of capital investment in the shipyards. However, we noted that at current average funding levels it would take at least 19 years and a Navy-estimated $4.86 billion to clear the backlog of restoration and modernization projects at the shipyards. Furthermore, this estimate does not include the $9 billion that the Navy estimates it will need for capacity and capability upgrades over the next 12 years to support maintenance operations for the current fleet. In September 2016, we found that although DOD has stated that readiness rebuilding is a priority, implementation and oversight of department-wide readiness rebuilding efforts did not fully include key elements of sound planning, and the lack of these elements puts the overall rebuilding efforts at risk. The Navy states that its overall goal for readiness recovery is to reach a predictable and sustainable level of global presence and surge capacity from year to year. The Navy identified carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups as key force elements in its plan for readiness recovery and had set 2020 for reaching a predictable and sustainable level of global presence and surge capacity by implementing the optimized fleet response plan. However, we found in 2016 that the Navy faced significant challenges, such as delays in completing maintenance and emerging demands, in achieving its readiness recovery goals for carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups, and projections show that the Navy will not meet its time frames for achieving readiness recovery. As a result, we recommended that DOD and the services establish comprehensive readiness goals, strategies for implementing them, and associated metrics that can be used to evaluate whether readiness recovery efforts are achieving intended outcomes. DOD generally concurred with our recommendations and, in November 2016, issued limited guidance to the military services on rebuilding readiness; it has also started to design a framework to guide the military services in achieving readiness recovery but has not yet implemented our recommendations. The Navy has since extended its time frame for readiness recovery to at least 2021, but it still has not developed specific benchmarks or interim goals for tracking and reporting on readiness recovery. Navy officials cited several challenges to rebuilding readiness, chief among them the continued high demand for its forces, the unpredictability of funding, and the current difficulty with beginning and completing ship maintenance on time. In January 2017, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review and identify actions that can be implemented in fiscal year 2017 to improve readiness. DOD and Navy officials told us that, as part of this readiness review, the Navy prioritized immediate readiness gaps and shortfalls. These officials added that this review would guide the Navy’s investment decisions in future budget cycles, with the intention to rebuild readiness and prepare the force for future conflicts. However, high demand for naval presence will continue to put pressure on a fleet that is already stretched thin across the globe. Looking to the future, the Navy has plans to grow its fleet by as much as 30 percent, but it has not yet shown the ability to adequately man, maintain, and operate the current fleet. These readiness problems need to be addressed and will require the Navy to implement our recommendations—particularly in the areas of assessing the risks associated with overseas basing, reassessing sailor workload and the factors used to size ship crews, managing investments in its shipyards, and applying sound planning and sustained management attention to its readiness rebuilding efforts. In addition, continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that the Navy demonstrates progress in addressing its maintenance, training, and other challenges. Chairmen McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time. If you or your staff have questions about this testimony, please contact John Pendleton, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Suzanne Wren, Assistant Director; Steven Banovac, Chris Cronin, Kerri Eisenbach, Joanne Landesman, Amie Lesser, Felicia Lopez, Tobin McMurdie, Shari Nikoo, Cody Raysinger, Michael Silver, Grant Sutton, and Chris Watson. Over the past three years, we issued several reports related to Navy readiness cited in this statement. Table 1 summarizes the status of recommendations made in these reports, which contained a total of 14 recommendations. The Department of Defense generally concurred with all of these recommendations but has implemented only one of them to date. For each of the reports, the specific recommendations and their implementation status are summarized in tables 2 through 5. The Navy defines a class A mishap as one that results in $2 million or more in damages to government or other property, or a mishap that resulted in a fatality or permanent total disability. We analyzed data compiled by the Naval Safety Center for fiscal years 2009 through 2017 to provide a summary of major Navy mishaps at sea (see table 6). Report numbers with a C or RC suffix are Classified. Classified reports are available to personnel with the proper clearances and need to know, upon request. Naval Shipyards: Actions Needed to Improve Poor Conditions that Affect Operation. GAO-17-548. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2017. Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Maintenance, Training, and Other Challenges Facing the Fleet. GAO-17-798T. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2017. Department of Defense: Actions Needed to Address Five Key Mission Challenges. GAO-17-369. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2017. Military Readiness: Coastal Riverine Force Challenges. GAO-17-462C. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2017. (SECRET) Navy Force Structure: Actions Needed to Ensure Proper Size and Composition of Ship Crews. GAO-17-413. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2017. Military Readiness: DOD’s Readiness Rebuilding Efforts May Be at Risk without a Comprehensive Plan. GAO-16-841. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2016. Navy and Marine Corps: Services Face Challenges to Rebuilding Readiness. GAO-16-481RC. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2016. (SECRET//NOFORN) Military Readiness: Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Navy’s Optimized Fleet Response Plan. GAO-16-466R. Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2016. Navy Force Structure: Sustainable Plan and Comprehensive Assessment Needed to Mitigate Long-Term Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas Homeports. GAO-15-329. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2015. Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Assess Risks to Its Strategy to Improve Ship Readiness. GAO-12-887. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2012. Force Structure: Improved Cost Information and Analysis Needed to Guide Overseas Military Posture Decisions. GAO-12-711. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2012. Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Reassess Its Metrics and Assumptions for Ship Crewing Requirements and Training. GAO-10-592. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2010. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.", "answers": ["Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at sea that resulted in serious damage to its ships and the loss of 17 sailors. Three of these incidents involved ships homeported in Japan. In response to these incidents, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered an operational pause for all fleets worldwide, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of surface fleet operations, stating that these tragic incidents are not limited occurrences but part of a disturbing trend in mishaps involving U.S. ships. This statement provides information on the effects of homeporting ships overseas, reducing crew size on ships, and not completing maintenance on time on the readiness of the Navy and summarizes GAO recommendations to address the Navy's maintenance, training, and other challenges. In preparing this statement, GAO relied on work it has published since 2015 related to the readiness of ships homeported overseas, sailor training and workload issues, maintenance challenges, and other issues. GAO updated this information, as appropriate, based on Navy data. GAO's prior work shows that the Navy has increased deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and reduced or deferred maintenance to meet high operational demands, which has resulted in declining ship conditions and a worsening trend in overall readiness. The Navy has stated that high demand for presence has put pressure on a fleet that is stretched thin across the globe. Some of the concerns that GAO has highlighted include: Degraded readiness of ships homeported overseas: Since 2006, the Navy has doubled the number of ships based overseas. Overseas basing provides additional forward presence and rapid crisis response, but GAO found in May 2015 that there were no dedicated training periods built into the operational schedules of the cruisers and destroyers based in Japan. As a result, the crews of these ships did not have all of their needed training and certifications. Based on updated data, GAO found that, as of June 2017, 37 percent of the warfare certifications for cruiser and destroyer crews based in Japan—including certifications for seamanship—had expired. This represents more than a fivefold increase in the percentage of expired warfare certifications for these ships since GAO's May 2015 report. The Navy has made plans to revise operational schedules to provide dedicated training time for overseas-based ships, but this schedule has not yet been implemented. Crew size reductions contribute to sailor overwork and safety risks: GAO found in May 2017 that reductions to crew sizes the Navy made in the early 2000s were not analytically supported and may now be creating safety risks. The Navy has reversed some of those changes but continues to use a workweek standard that does not reflect the actual time sailors spend working and does not account for in-port workload—both of which have contributed to some sailors working over 100 hours a week. Inability to complete maintenance on time: Navy recovery from persistently low readiness levels is premised on adherence to maintenance schedules. However, in May 2016, GAO found that the Navy was having difficulty completing maintenance on time. Based on updated data, GAO found that, in fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 107 of 169 surface ships (63 percent) resulted in 6,603 lost operational days (i.e., the ships were not available for training and operations). Looking to the future, the Navy wants to grow its fleet by as much as 30 percent but continues to face challenges with manning, training, and maintaining its existing fleet. These readiness problems need to be addressed and will require the Navy to implement GAO's recommendations—particularly in the areas of assessing the risks associated with overseas basing, reassessing sailor workload and the factors used to size ship crews, managing investments to modernize and improve the efficiency of the naval shipyards, and applying sound planning and sustained management attention to its readiness rebuilding efforts. In addition, continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that the Navy demonstrates progress in addressing its maintenance, training, and other challenges. GAO made 14 recommendations in prior work cited in this statement. The Department of Defense generally concurred with all of them but has implemented only 1. Continued attention is needed to ensure that these recommendations are addressed, such as the Navy assessing the risks associated with overseas basing and reassessing sailor workload and factors used in its manpower requirements process."], "length": 3534, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "3e8ad49dcf944a40c33361105c7fda3e4e569af90ba6da05"}
{"input": "", "context": "While HUD has primary responsibility for addressing lead paint hazards in federally-assisted housing, EPA also has responsibilities related to setting federal lead standards for housing. EPA sets federal standards for lead hazards in paint, soil, and dust. Additionally, EPA regulates the training and certification of workers who remediate lead paint hazards. CDC sets a health guideline known as the “blood lead reference value” to identify children exposed to more lead than most other children. As of 2012, CDC began using a blood lead reference value of 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. For children whose blood lead level is at or above CDC’s blood lead reference value, health care providers and public health agencies can identify those children who may benefit the most from early intervention. CDC’s blood lead reference value is based on the 97.5th percentile of the blood lead distribution in U.S. children (ages 1 to 5), using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Children with blood lead levels above CDC’s blood lead reference value have blood lead levels in the highest 2.5 percent of all U.S. children (ages 1 to 5). HUD, EPA, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are members of the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. HUD co- chairs the lead subcommittee of this task force with EPA and HHS. The task force published the last national lead strategy in 2000. The primary federal legislation to address lead paint hazards and the related requirements for HUD is the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992). We refer to this law as Title X throughout this report. Title X required HUD to, among other things, promulgate lead paint regulations, implement the lead hazard control grant programs, and conduct research and reporting, as discussed throughout this report. The two key regulations that HUD has issued under Title X are the Lead Disclosure Rule and the Lead Safe Housing Rule: Lead Disclosure Rule. In 1996, HUD and EPA jointly issued the Lead Disclosure Rule. The rule applies to most housing built before 1978 and requires sellers and lessors to disclose any known information, available records, and reports on the presence of lead paint and lead paint hazards and provide an EPA-approved information pamphlet prior to sale or lease. Lead Safe Housing Rule. In 1999, HUD first issued the Lead Safe Housing Rule, which applies only to housing receiving federal assistance or federally-owned housing being sold. The rule established procedures for evaluating whether a lead paint hazard exists, controlling or eliminating the hazard, and notifying occupants of any lead paint hazards identified and related remediation efforts. The rule established an “elevated blood lead level” as a threshold that requires landlords and PHAs to take certain actions if a child’s blood test shows lead levels meeting or exceeding this threshold. In 2017, HUD amended the rule to align its definition of an “elevated blood lead level” with CDC’s blood lead reference value. This change lowered the threshold that generally required landlords and PHAs to act from 20 micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. According to the rule, when a child under age 6 living in HUD-assisted housing has an elevated blood lead level, the housing provider must take several steps. These generally include testing the home and other potential sources of the child’s lead exposure within 15 days, ensuring that identified lead paint hazards are addressed within 30 days of receiving a report detailing the results of that testing, and reporting the case to HUD. Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (Lead Office). HUD’s Lead Office is primarily responsible for administering HUD’s two lead hazard control grant programs, providing guidance on HUD’s lead paint regulations, and tracking HUD’s efforts to make housing lead-safe. The Lead Office collaborates with HUD program offices on its oversight and enforcement of lead paint regulations. For instance, the Lead Office issues guidance, responds to questions about requirements of lead paint regulations, and provides training and technical assistance to HUD program staff, PHA staff, and property owners. The Lead Office’s oversight efforts also include maintaining email and telephone hotlines to receive complaints and tips from tenants or homeowners, among others, as they pertain to lead paint regulations. Additionally, the Lead Office, in collaboration with EPA, contributes to the operation of the National Lead Information Center––a resource that provides the general public and professionals with information about lead, lead hazards, and their prevention. Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). HUD’s PIH oversees and enforces HUD’s lead paint regulations for the rental assistance programs. As discussed earlier, this report focuses on the two largest rental assistance programs serving the most families with children––the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing programs. Housing Choice Voucher program. In the voucher program, eligible families and individuals are given vouchers as rental assistance to use in the private housing market. Generally, eligible families with vouchers live in the housing of their choice in the private market. The voucher generally pays the difference between the family’s contribution toward rent and the actual rent for the unit. Vouchers are portable; once a family receives one, it can take the voucher and move to other areas where the voucher program is administered. In 2017, there were roughly 2.5 million vouchers available. Public housing program. Public housing is reduced-rent developments owned and operated by the local PHA and subsidized by the federal government. PHAs receive several streams of funding from HUD to help make up the difference between what tenants pay in rent and what it costs to maintain public housing. For example, PHAs receive operating and capital funds through a formula allocation process. PHAs use operating funds to pay for management, administration, and day-to-day costs of running a housing development. Capital funds are used for modernization needs, such as replacing roofs or remediating lead paint hazards. According to HUD rules, generally families that are income-eligible to live in public housing pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent. In 2017, there were roughly 1 million public housing units available. For both of these rental assistance programs, the Office of Field Operations (OFO) within PIH oversees PHAs’ compliance with lead paint regulations, in conjunction with HUD field office staff. The office has a risk-based approach to overseeing PHAs and performs quarterly risk assessments. Also within PIH, staff from the Real Estate Assessment Center are responsible for inspecting the physical condition of public housing properties. Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). HUD’s PD&R is the primary office responsible for data analysis, research, and program evaluations to inform the development and implementation of programs and policies across HUD offices. of the total grant amount, while the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program has required at least a 25 percent match. For fiscal years 2013–2017, HUD awarded $527 million for its lead hazard control grants, which included 186 grants to state and local jurisdictions (see fig. 1). In these 5 years, about 40 percent of grants awarded went to jurisdictions in the Northeast and 31 percent to jurisdictions in the Midwest––regions of the country known to have a high prevalence of lead paint hazards. Additionally, in these 5 years, 90 percent of grant awards went to grantees at the local jurisdiction level (cities, counties, and the District of Columbia). The other 10 percent of grant awards went to state governments. During this time period, HUD awarded the most grants to jurisdictions in Ohio (17 grants), Massachusetts and New York (15 grants each), and Connecticut (14 grants). HUD’s Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant programs have incorporated Title X statutory requirements through recent annual funding notices and their grant processes. Title X contains applicant eligibility requirements and selection criteria HUD should use to award lead grants. To be eligible to receive a grant, applicants need to be a state or local jurisdiction, contribute matching funds to supplement the grant award, have an approved comprehensive affordable housing strategy, and have a certified lead abatement program (if the applicant is a state government). HUD has incorporated these eligibility requirements in its grant programs’ 2017 funding notices, which require applicants to demonstrate that they meet these requirements when they apply for a lead grant. According to the 2017 funding notices, applicants must detail the sources and amounts of their matching contributions in their applications. Similarly, applicants must submit a form certifying that the proposed grant activities are consistent with their local affordable housing strategy. HUD’s 2017 funding notices state that if applicants did not meet these eligibility requirements, HUD would not consider their applications. Additionally, Title X requires HUD to award lead grants according to the following applicant selection criteria: the extent to which an applicant’s proposed activities will reduce the risk of lead poisoning for children under the age of 6; the degree of severity and extent of lead paint hazards in the applicant’s jurisdiction; the applicant’s ability to supplement the grant award with state, local, or private funds; the applicant’s ability to carry out the proposed grant activities; and other factors determined by the HUD Secretary to ensure that the grants are used effectively. In its 2017 funding notices, HUD incorporated the Title X applicant selection criteria through five scoring factors that it used to assess lead grant applications. HUD allocated a certain number of points to each scoring factor. Applicants are required to develop their grant proposals in response to the scoring factors. When reviewing applications, HUD staff evaluated an applicant’s response to the factors and assigned points for each factor. See table 1 for a description of the 2017 lead grant programs’ scoring factors and points. As shown in table 1, HUD awarded the most points (46 out of 100) to the “soundness of approach” scoring factor, according to HUD’s 2017 funding notices. Through this factor, HUD incorporated Title X selection criteria on an applicant’s ability to carry out the proposed grant activities and supplement a grant award with state, local, or private funds. For example, HUD’s 2017 funding notices required applicants to describe their detailed plans to implement grant activities, including how the applicants will establish partnerships to make housing lead-safe. Specifically, HUD began awarding 2 of the 100 points to applicants who demonstrated partnerships with local public health agencies to identify families with children for enrollment in the lead grant programs. Additionally, HUD asked applicants to identify partners that can help provide assistance to complete the lead hazard control work for high-cost housing units. Furthermore, HUD required applicants to identify any nonfederal funding, including funding from the applicants’ partners. Appendix I includes examples of state, local, and nongovernmental funds that selected grantees planned to use to supplement their lead grants. In its lead grant programs, HUD has taken actions that were consistent with OMB’s requirements for competitively awarded grants. OMB generally requires federal agencies to: (1) establish a merit-review process for competitive grants that includes the criteria and process to evaluate applications; and (2) develop a framework to assess the risks posed by applicants for competitive grants, among other things. Through a merit-review process, an agency establishes and applies criteria to evaluate the merit of competitive grant applications. Such a process helps to ensure that the agency reviews grant applications in a fair, competitive, and transparent manner. Consistent with the OMB requirement to establish a merit review process, HUD has issued annual funding notices that communicate clear and explicit evaluative criteria. In addition, HUD has established processes for reviewing and scoring grant applications using these evaluative criteria, and selects grant recipients based on the review scores (see fig. 2). For example, applicants that score at or above 75 points are qualified to receive awards from HUD. Also, HUD awards funds beginning with the highest scoring applicant and proceeds by awarding funds to applicants in a descending order until funds are exhausted. Furthermore, consistent with the OMB requirement to develop a framework to assess applicant risks, HUD has developed a framework to assess the risk posed by lead grant applicants by, among other things, deeming ineligible those applicants with past performance deficiencies or those that do not have a financial management system that meets federal standards. However, HUD has not fully documented or evaluated its lead grant processes in reviewing and scoring the grants and making award decisions: Documenting grant processes and award decisions. While HUD has established processes for its lead grant programs, it lacks documentation, including detailed guidance to help ensure that staff carry out processes consistently and appropriately. Federal internal control standards state that agency management should develop and maintain documentation of its internal control system. Such documentation assists agency management by establishing and communicating the processes to staff. Additionally, documentation of processes can provide a means to retain organizational knowledge and communicate that knowledge as needed to external parties. The Lead Office’s Application Review Guide describes its grant application review and award processes at a high level but does not provide detailed guidance for staff as to how tasks should be performed. For example, the Guide notes that reviewers score eligible applications according to factors contained in the funding notices but does not describe how the reviewers should allocate points to the subfactors that make up each factor. Lead Office staff told us that creating detailed scoring guidance would be challenging because applicants’ proposed grant activities differ widely, and they said that scoring grant applications is a subjective process. While scoring grant applications may involve subjective judgments, improved documentation of grant review and scoring processes, including additional direction to staff, can help staff apply their professional judgment more consistently in evaluating applications. By better documenting processes, HUD can better ensure that staff evaluate applications consistently. Additionally, HUD has not fully documented its rationale for deciding which applicants receive lead grant awards and for deciding the dollar amounts of grant awards to successful applicants. In prior work examining federal grant programs, one recommended practice we identified is that agencies should document the rationale for award decisions, including the reasons individual applicants were selected or not and how award funding amounts were determined. While HUD’s internal memorandums listed the applicants selected and the award amounts, these memorandums did not document the rationale for these decisions or provide information sufficient to help applicants understand award outcomes. Lead Office staff told us that most grantees have received the amount of funding they requested in their applications, which was generally based on HUD’s maximum grant award amount. Lead Office staff said they could use their professional judgment to adjust award amounts to extend funding to more applicants when applicants received similar scores. However, the Lead Office’s documentation we reviewed did not explain this type of decision making. For example, in 2017, when two applicants received identical scores on their applications, HUD awarded each applicant 50 percent of the remaining available funds rather than awarding either applicant the amount they requested. Representatives of one of the two grantees told us they did not know why the Lead Office had not provided them the full amount they had requested. Lead Office staff told us that, to date, HUD has not considered alternative ways to award grant funding amounts. By fully documenting grant award processes, including the rationale for award decisions and amounts, HUD could provide greater transparency to grant applicants about its grant award decisions. Evaluating processes. HUD lacks a formal process for reviewing and updating its lead grant funding notices, including the factors and point allocations used to score applications. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should implement control activities through policies and that periodic review of policies and procedures can provide assurance of their effectiveness in achieving the agency’s objectives. Lead Office staff told us that previous changes to the factors and point allocation used to score applicants have been made based on informal discussions among staff. However, the Lead Office does not have a formal process to review and evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the factors or points used to score applicants. Lead Office staff told us that they have never analyzed the scores applicants received for the factors to identify areas where applicants may be performing well or poorly or to help inform decisions about whether changes may be needed to the factors or points. Additionally, HUD has not changed the threshold criteria used to make award decisions since the threshold was established in 2003. As previously shown in figure 2, applicants who received at least 75 points (out of 100) have been qualified to receive a grant award. However, HUD grant documentation, including the funding notices and the Application Review Guide, does not explain the significance of this 75-point threshold. Lead Office staff stated that this threshold was first established in 2003 by HUD based on OMB guidance. A formal review of this 75-point threshold can help HUD determine whether it remains appropriate for achieving the grant programs’ objectives. Furthermore, by periodically evaluating processes for reviewing and scoring grant applications, HUD can better determine whether these processes continue to help ensure that lead grants reach areas of the country at greater risk for lead paint hazards. HUD has begun to develop analyses and tools to inform its efforts to target outreach and ensure that grant awards go to areas of the country that are at risk for lead paint hazards. However, HUD has not developed time frames for incorporating the results of the analyses into its lead grant programs’ processes. HUD has required jurisdictions applying for lead grants to include data on the need or extent of the problem in their jurisdiction (i.e., scoring factor 2). Additionally, Lead Office staff told us that HUD uses information from the American Healthy Homes Survey to obtain information on lead paint hazards across the country. However, the staff explained that the survey was designed to provide meaningful results at the regional level and did not include enough homes in its sample to provide information about housing conditions, such as lead paint hazards, at the state or local level. Because HUD awards lead grants to state and local jurisdictions, it cannot effectively use the survey results to help the agency make award decisions or inform decisions about areas for potential outreach. In early 2017, the Lead Office began working with PD&R to develop a model to identify local jurisdictions (at the census-tract level) that may be at heightened risk for lead paint hazards. Lead Office staff said that they hope to use results of this model to develop geographic tools to help target HUD funding to areas of the country at risk for lead paint hazards but not currently receiving a HUD lead grant. Lead Office staff said that they could reach out to these at-risk areas, help them build the capacity needed to administer a grant, and encourage them to apply. For example, HUD has identified that Mississippi and two major metropolitan areas in Florida (Miami and Tampa) had not applied for a lead grant. HUD has conducted outreach to these areas to encourage them to apply for a lead grant. In 2016, the City of Jackson, Mississippi, applied for and received a lead grant. Though the Lead Office has collaborated with PD&R on the model, HUD has not developed specific time frames to operationalize the model and incorporate the results of the model for using local-level data to help better identify areas at risk for lead paint hazards. Federal internal control standards require agencies to define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks. This includes clearly defining time frames for achieving the objectives. Setting specific time frames could help to ensure that HUD operationalizes this model in a timely manner. By operationalizing a model that incorporates local data on lead paint hazard risk, HUD can better target its limited grant resources towards areas of the country with significant potential for lead hazard control needs. We performed a county-level analysis using HUD and Census Bureau data and found that most lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone to counties with at least one indicator of lead paint hazard risk. Information we reviewed, such as relevant literature, suggests that the two common indicators of lead paint hazard risk are the prevalence of housing built before the 1978 lead paint ban and the prevalence of individuals living below the poverty line. We defined areas with lead paint hazard risk as counties that had percentages higher than the corresponding national percentages for both of these indicators. The estimated average percentage nationwide of total U.S. housing stock constructed before 1980 was 56.9 percent and the estimated average percentage nationwide of individuals living below the poverty line was 17.5 percent. As shown in figure 3, our analysis estimated that 18 percent of lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone to counties with both indicators above the estimated national percentages, 59 percent of grants have gone to counties with estimated percentages of old housing above the estimated national percentage, and 7 percent of grants have gone to counties that had estimated poverty rates above the estimated national percentage. (For an interactive version of this map, click here.) When HUD finalizes its model and incorporates information into its lead grant processes, HUD will be able to better target its grant resources to areas that may be at heightened risk for lead paint hazards. In 2016, HUD began to incorporate new steps to monitor PHAs’ compliance with lead paint regulations for nearly 4,000 PHAs. Previously, according to PIH staff, HUD required only that PHAs annually self-certify their compliance with lead paint laws and regulations, and HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center inspectors check for lead paint inspection reports and disclosure forms at public housing properties during physical inspections. Starting in June 2016, PIH began using new tools for HUD field staff to track PHAs’ compliance with lead paint requirements in the voucher and public housing programs. As shown in figure 4, PIH’s compliance oversight processes for the voucher and public housing programs include various monitoring tools for overseeing PHAs. Key components of PIH’s lead paint oversight processes include the following: Tools for tracking lead hazards and cases of elevated blood levels in children. HUD uses two databases to monitor PHAs’ compliance with lead paint regulations: (1) the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker, which PIH uses to collect and monitor information on the status of lead paint-related documents, including lead inspection reports and disclosure forms, in public housing properties but not in units with voucher assisted households; and (2) the Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker, which PIH uses to collect and monitor information reported by PHAs on cases of elevated blood levels in children living in voucher and public housing units. In June 2016, OFO began using the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker database to store information on public housing units and to help HUD field office staff to follow up with PHAs that have properties missing required lead documentation. In July 2017, OFO began using information recorded in the Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker to track whether PHAs started lead remediation activities in HUD- assisted housing within the time frames required by the Lead Safe Housing Rule. Lead paint hazards included in PHAs’ risk assessment scores. OFO assigns scores to PHAs based on their relative risk in four categories: physical condition, financial condition, management capacity, and governance. OFO uses these scores to identify high- and very high-risk PHAs that will receive on-site full compliance reviews. In July 2017, OFO incorporated data from the Real Estate Assessment Center into the physical condition category of its Risk Assessment Protocol to help account for potential lead paint hazards at public housing properties. Questions about lead paint included as part of on-site full compliance reviews. In fiscal year 2016, HUD field offices began conducting on-site full compliance reviews at high- and very high-risk PHAs as part of HUD’s compliance monitoring program to enhance oversight and accountability of PHAs. In fiscal year 2017, as part of the reviews, HUD field office staff started using a compliance monitoring checklist to determine if PHAs comply with major HUD rules and to gather additional information on the PHAs. This checklist included lead-related questions that PIH field office staff use to determine whether PHAs meet the requirements in lead paint regulations for both the voucher and public housing programs. In 2016, OFO and HUD field offices began using information from the new monitoring efforts to identify potential noncompliance by PHAs with lead paint regulations and help the PHAs resolve the identified issues. According to HUD data, as of November 2017, the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker indicated that 9 percent (357) of PHAs were missing both lead inspection reports and lead disclosure forms for one or more properties. There were 973 PHAs missing one of the two required documents. OFO staff told us that they prioritized following up with PHAs that were missing both documents. According to OFO staff, PHAs can resolve potential noncompliance by submitting adequate lead documentation to HUD. OFO staff told us the agency considers missing lead documentation as “potential” noncompliance because PHAs may provide the required documentation or they may be exempt from certain requirements (e.g., HUD-designated elderly housing). While HUD has taken steps to strengthen compliance monitoring processes, it does not have a plan to identify and address the risks of noncompliance by PHAs with lead paint regulations. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Furthermore, when an agency has made significant changes to its processes—as HUD has done with its compliance monitoring processes—management review of changes to these processes can help the agency determine that its control activities are designed appropriately. Our review found that HUD does not have a plan to help mitigate and address risks related to noncompliance with lead paint regulations by PHAs (i.e., ensuring lead safety in assisted housing). Additionally, our review found several limitations with HUD’s new compliance monitoring approach, which include the following: Reliance on PHA self-certifications. HUD’s compliance monitoring processes rely in part on PHAs self-certifying that they are in compliance with lead paint regulations, but recent investigations have found that some PHAs may have falsely certified that they were in compliance. In November 2017, HUD filed a fraud complaint against two former officials of the Alexander County (Illinois) Housing Authority, alleging that the former official, among other things, falsely certified to HUD that the Housing Authority was in compliance with lead paint regulations. Further, PIH staff told us there are ongoing investigations related to potential noncompliance with lead paint regulations and false certifications at two other housing authorities. Lack of comprehensive data for the public housing program. OFO started to collect data for the public housing program in the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker in June 2016 and the inventory of all public housing properties includes units inspected since 2012. In addition, HUD primarily relies on the presence of lead inspection reports but does not record in the database when inspections and remediation activities occurred and does not determine whether they are still effective. Because of this, the information contained in the lead inspection reports may no longer be up-to-date. For example, a lead inspection report from the 1990s may provide evidence that abatement work was conducted at that time, but according to PIH staff, the housing may no longer be lead-safe. Lack of readily available data for the voucher program. The voucher program does not have readily available data on housing units’ physical condition and compliance with lead paint regulations because data on the roughly 2.5 million units in the program are kept at the PHA level. According to PIH staff, HUD plans to adopt a new system for the voucher program that will include standardized, electronic data for voucher units. PIH staff said the new system (Uniform Physical Condition Standards for Vouchers Protocol) will allow greater oversight and provide HUD the ability to conduct data analysis for voucher units. Challenges identifying children with elevated blood lead levels. For several reasons, PHAs face ongoing challenges receiving information from state and local public health departments on the number of children identified with elevated blood lead levels. First, children across the U.S. are not consistently screened and tested for exposure to lead. Second, according to CDC data, many states use a less stringent health guideline to identify children compared to the health standard that HUD uses (i.e., CDC’s current blood lead reference value). PIH staff told us that some public health departments may not report children with elevated blood levels to PHAs because they do not know that a child is living in a HUD- assisted unit and needs to be identified using the more stringent HUD standard. Lastly, Lead Office staff told us that privacy laws in some states may impose restrictions on public health departments’ ability to share information with PHAs. Limited coverage of on-site compliance reviews. While full on-site compliance reviews can be used to determine if PHAs are in compliance with lead paint regulations, OFO conducts a limited number of these reviews annually. For example, in Fiscal Year 2017, OFO conducted 72 reviews of the roughly 4,000 total PHAs. Based on OFO information, there are 973 PHAs that are missing either lead inspection reports or lead disclosure forms indicating some level of potential noncompliance. HUD’s steps since June 2016 to enhance monitoring of PHAs’ compliance with lead paint regulations have some limitations that create risks in its new compliance monitoring approach. By developing a plan to help mitigate and address the various limitations associated with the new compliance monitoring approach, HUD could further strengthen its oversight and help ensure that PHAs maintain lead-safe housing units. HUD does not have detailed procedures to address PHA noncompliance with lead paint regulations or to determine when enforcement decisions may be needed. Lead Office staff told us that their enforcement program aims to ensure that PHAs have the information necessary to remain in compliance with lead paint regulations. According to federal internal control standards, agencies should implement control activities through policies and procedures. Effective design of procedures to address noncompliance would include documenting specific actions to be performed by agency staff when deficiencies are identified and related time frames for these actions. While HUD staff stated that they address PHA noncompliance through ongoing communication and technical assistance to PHAs, HUD has not documented specific actions to be performed by staff when deficiencies are identified. OFO staff told us that in general, PIH has not needed to take many enforcement actions because field offices are able to resolve most lead paint regulation compliance concerns with PHAs through ongoing communication and technical assistance. For example, HUD field offices sent letters to PHAs when Real Estate Assessment Center inspectors could not locate required lead inspection reports and lead disclosure forms, and requested that the PHA send the missing documentation within 30 days. However, OFO’s fiscal years 2015–2017 internal memorandums on monitoring and oversight guidance for HUD field offices did not contain detailed procedures, including time frames or criteria HUD staff would use to determine when to consider whether a more formal enforcement action might be warranted. Additionally, Lead Office staff said if efforts to bring a PHA into compliance are unsuccessful, the Lead Office would work in conjunction with PIH and HUD’s Office of General Counsel’s Departmental Enforcement Center to determine if an enforcement action is needed, such as withholding or delaying funds from a PHA or imposing civil money penalties on a PHA. Lead Office staff also told us that instead of imposing a fine on a PHA, HUD would rather work with the PHA to resolve the lead paint hazard. However, the Lead Office provided no documentation detailing the specific steps or time frames HUD staff would follow to determine when a noncompliance case is escalated to the Office of General Counsel. In a March 2018 report to Congress, HUD noted that children continued to test positive for lead in HUD-assisted housing in 2017. In the same report, HUD notes PIH and the Lead Office will continue to work with PHAs to ensure compliance with lead paint regulations. By adopting procedures that clearly describe when lead paint hazard compliance efforts are no longer sufficient and enforcement decisions are needed, HUD can better keep PHAs accountable in a consistent and timely manner. The standard HUD uses to identify children with elevated blood lead levels and initiate lead hazard control activities in its rental assistance aligns with the health guideline set by CDC in 2012. HUD also uses CDC’s health guideline in its lead grant programs. In HUD’s January 2017 amendment to the Lead Safe Housing Rule, HUD made its standard for lead in a child’s blood more stringent by lowering it from 20 micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, matching CDC’s health guideline (i.e., blood lead reference value). Specifically, HUD’s stronger standard allows the agency to respond more quickly when children under 6 years old are exposed to lead paint hazards in voucher and public housing units. The January 2017 rule also established more comprehensive testing for children and evaluation procedures for HUD assisted housing. According to HUD’s press release that accompanied the rule, by aligning HUD’s standard with CDC’s guidance, HUD can respond more quickly in cases when a child who lives in HUD assisted housing shows early signs of lead in their blood. The 2017 rule notes HUD will revise the agency’s elevated blood lead level to align with future changes HHS may make to its recommended environmental intervention level. HUD’s standards for lead dust levels align with EPA standards for its rental assistance programs and exceed EPA standards for the lead grant programs. In 2001, EPA published a final rule on lead paint hazard standards, including lead dust clearance standards. The rule established standards to help property owners, contractors, and government agencies identify lead hazards in residential paint, dust, and soil and address these hazards in and around homes. Under these standards, lead is considered a hazard when equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot sampled on floors and 250 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot sampled on interior window sills. In 2004, HUD amended the Lead Safe Housing Rule to incorporate the 2001 EPA lead dust standards as HUD’s standards. Since this time, HUD has used EPA’s 2001 lead hazard standards in its rental assistance programs. In February 2017, HUD released policy guidance for its lead grantees requiring them to meet new and more protective requirements for identifying and addressing lead paint hazards in the lead grant programs than those imposed by EPA’s 2001 standards that HUD uses in the rental assistance programs. For example, the policy guidance requires grantees to consider lead dust a hazard on floors at 10 micrograms per square foot sampled (down from 40) and on window sills at 100 micrograms per square foot sampled (down from 250). The policy guidance noted that the new requirements are supported by scientific evidence on the adverse effects of lead exposure at low blood lead levels in children. Further, the policy guidance established a standard for porch floors––an area that EPA has not covered––because porch floors can be both a direct exposure source for children and a source of lead dust that can be tracked into the home. On December 27, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered EPA to issue a proposed rule updating its lead dust hazard standard and the definition of lead-based paint within 90 days of the decision becoming final and a final rule within 1 year of the proposed rule. Because HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule generally defines lead paint hazards and lead dust hazards to mean the levels promulgated by EPA, if EPA changes its 2001 standards those new standards would be used in HUD’s rental assistance programs. On March 16, 2018, EPA filed a request to the court asking for clarification for when EPA is required to issue the proposed rule and followed up with a motion seeking clarification or an extension. In response to EPA’s motion, on March 26, 2018, the court issued an order clarifying time frames and ordered that the proposed rule be issued within 90 days from March 26, 2018. HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule requires a stricter lead inspection standard for public housing than for voucher units. According to HUD staff, HUD does not have the authority to require the more stringent inspection in the voucher program. While HUD has acknowledged that moving to a stricter inspection standard for voucher units would provide greater assurance that these units are lead-safe and expressed its plan to support legislative change to authorize it to impose a more stringent inspection standard, HUD has not requested authority from Congress to amend its inspection standard for the voucher program. For voucher units, HUD requires PHAs to ensure that trained inspectors conduct visual assessments to identify deteriorated paint for housing units inhabited by a child under 6 years old. In a visual assessment, an inspector looks for deteriorated paint and visible surface dust but does not conduct any testing of paint chips or dust samples from surfaces to determine the presence of lead in the home’s paint. By contrast, for public housing units, HUD requires a stronger inspection process. Lead- based paint inspections are required for pre-1978 public housing units. If that inspection identifies lead-based paint, PHAs must then perform a risk assessment. In a risk assessment, in addition to conducting a visual inspection, an inspector tests for the presence of lead paint by collecting and testing samples of paint chips and surface dust, and typically using a specialized device (an X-ray fluorescence analyzer) to measure the amount of lead in the paint on a surface, such as a wall, door, or window sill. Staff from HUD’s Lead Office and the Office of General Counsel told us that Title X did not include specific risk assessment requirements for voucher units, and HUD does not believe, therefore, that it has the statutory authority to require an assessment more thorough than a visual assessment of voucher units. As of May 2018, HUD had not requested statutory authority to change the visual assessment standard used in the voucher program. However, HUD previously acknowledged the limitation of the weaker inspection standard in a June 2016 publication titled Lead- Safe Homes, Lead-Free Kids Toolkit. In this publication, HUD noted its plans to support legislative change to strengthen lead safety in voucher units by eliminating reliance on visual-only inspections. Staff from HUD’s Lead Office and Office of General Counsel told us the agency recognizes that risk assessments are more comprehensive than visual assessments. The staff noted that, by definition, a risk assessment is a stronger inspection standard than a visual-only assessment because it includes additional identification and testing. In responding to a draft of this report, HUD cited the need to conduct and evaluate the results of a statistically rigorous study on the impacts of requiring a lead risk assessment versus a visual assessment, such as the impact on leasing times and the availability of housing for low-income families. HUD further noted that such a study could explore whether alternative options to the full risk assessment standard (such as targeted dust sampling) could achieve similar levels of protection for children in the voucher program. Requesting and obtaining authority to amend the standard for the voucher program would not preclude HUD from doing such a study. Such analysis might support a range of options based on consideration of health effects for children, housing availability, and other relevant factors. Because HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule contains a weaker lead inspection standard for the voucher program children living in voucher units may be less protected from lead paint hazards than children living in public housing. By requesting and obtaining statutory authority to amend the voucher program inspection standard, HUD would be positioned to take steps to ensure that children in the voucher program are provided better protection as indicated by analysis of the benefits and costs from amending the standard. HUD has taken limited steps to measure, evaluate, and report on the performance of its programmatic efforts to ensure that housing is lead- safe. First, HUD has tracked one performance measure for its lead grant programs but lacks comprehensive performance goals and measures. Second, while HUD has evaluated the effectiveness of its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant program, it has not formalized plans and does not have a time frame for evaluating its lead paint regulations. Third, HUD has not issued an annual report on the results of its lead efforts since 1997. A key aspect to promoting improved federal management and greater efficiency and effectiveness is that agencies set goals and report on performance. We have previously reported that a program performance assessment contains three key elements––program goals, performance measures, and program evaluations (see fig. 5). In our prior work, we have noted that both the executive branch and congressional committees need evaluative information to help them make decisions about the programs they oversee––information that tells them whether, and why, a program is working well or not. Program goals and performance measures. HUD has tracked one performance measure for making private housing units lead-safe as part of its lead grant programs but lacks goals and performance measures that more fully cover the range of its lead efforts. In addition to our prior work on program goals and performance measures, federal internal control standards state that management should define objectives clearly and that defining objectives in measurable terms allows agency management to assess performance toward achieving objectives. According to Lead Office staff, HUD provides information on its goals and performance measures related to its lead efforts in the agency’s annual performance reports. For example, the fiscal year 2016 report contains information about the number of private housing units made lead-safe as part of HUD’s lead grant programs but does not include any performance measures on HUD’s lead efforts for the voucher and public housing programs. Lead Office staff told us HUD does not have systems to count the number of housing units made lead-safe in these two housing programs. The staff said the Lead Office and PIH recently began discussing whether data from an existing HUD database could be used to count units made lead-safe within these programs. However, they could not provide additional details on the status of all these efforts. Without comprehensive goals and performance measures, HUD does not know the results it is achieving with all its lead paint hazard reduction efforts. Moreover, HUD may be missing opportunities to use performance information to improve the results of its lead efforts. Program evaluations. HUD has evaluated the effectiveness of its Lead- Based Paint Hazard Control grant program but has not taken similar steps to evaluate the Lead Safe Housing Rule or Lead Disclosure Rule. As previously stated, our prior work on program performance assessment has noted the importance of program evaluations to know how well a program is working relative to its objectives. Additionally, Title X required HUD to conduct research to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of interim lead hazard control and abatement strategies. For its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant program, HUD has contracted with outside experts to conduct evaluations. For example, the National Center for Healthy Housing and the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Environmental Health evaluated whether the lead hazard control methods used by grantees continued to be effective 1, 3, 6, and 12 years later. The evaluations concluded that the lead hazard control activities used by grantees substantially reduced lead dust levels and the original evaluation and those completed 1 and 3 years later were also associated with substantial declines in the blood lead levels of children living in the housing remediated using lead grant program funds. HUD has general plans to conduct evaluations of the Lead Safe Housing Rule and the Lead Disclosure Rule, but Lead Office and PD&R staff said they did not know when or if the studies will begin. In a 2016 publication, HUD noted its plans to evaluate the Lead Safe Housing Rule requirements and noted that such an evaluation would contribute toward policy recommendations and program improvements. Additionally, in its 2017 Research Roadmap, PD&R outlined HUD’s plans for two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of requirements within the Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules. However, PD&R and Lead Office staff were not able to provide a time frame for when the studies would begin. PD&R staff told us that the plans noted within the Research Roadmap were HUD’s first step in research planning and prioritization but that appropriations for research have been prescriptive in recent years (i.e., tied to specific research topics) and fell short of the agency’s research needs. By studying the effectiveness of requirements included within the Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules, including the cost- effectiveness of the various lead hazard control methods, HUD could have more complete information to assess how effectively it uses federal dollars to make housing units lead-safe. Reporting. HUD has not reported on its lead efforts as required since 1997. Title X includes annual and biennial reporting requirements for HUD. Staff from HUD’s Lead Office and General Counsel told us that in 1998 the agency agreed with the congressional committees of jurisdiction that HUD could satisfy this reporting requirement by including the required information in its annual performance reports. Lead Office staff told us HUD’s recent annual performance reports do not contain specific information required by law and that HUD has not issued other publicly available reports that contain the Title X reporting requirements. Title X requires HUD to annually provide Congress information on its progress in implementing the lead grant programs; a summary of studies looking at the incidence of lead poisoning in children living in HUD-assisted housing; the results of any required lead technical studies; and estimates of federal funds spent on lead hazard evaluation and reduction in HUD-assisted housing. As previously stated, the annual performance reports have provided information on the number of housing units made lead-safe through the agency’s lead grant programs, but not through the voucher or public housing programs. In March 2018, Lead Office staff told us HUD plans to submit separate reports on the agency’s lead effort, covering the Title X reporting requirements, starting in fiscal year 2019. By HUD complying with Title X statutory reporting requirements, Congress and the public will be in a position to better know the progress HUD is making toward ensuring that housing is lead-safe. Lead exposure can cause serious, irreversible cognitive damage that can impair a child for life. Through its lead grant programs and oversight of lead paint regulations, HUD is helping to address lead paint hazards in housing. However, our review identified specific areas where HUD could improve the effectiveness of its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards and protect children in low-income housing from lifelong health problems: Documenting and evaluating grant processes. HUD could improve documentation for its lead grant programs’ processes by providing more specific direction to staff and documenting grant award rationale. In doing so, HUD could better ensure that grant program staff score grant applications consistently and appropriately and provide greater transparency about its award decisions. Additionally, periodically evaluating its grant processes and procedures could help HUD better ensure that its lead grants reach areas most at risk for lead paint hazards. Identifying areas at risk for lead hazards. By developing specific time frames to finalize and incorporate the results of its model to more fully identify areas at risk for lead paint hazards, HUD can better identify and conduct outreach to at-risk localities that its lead grant programs have not yet reached. Overseeing compliance with lead paint regulations. False self- certifications of compliance by some PHAs and other limitations in HUD’s compliance monitoring approach make it essential for HUD to develop a plan to mitigate and address limitations, as well as establish procedures to determine when enforcement decisions are needed. These actions could further strengthen HUD’s oversight and keep PHAs accountable for ensuring that housing units are lead-safe. Amending inspection standard in the voucher program. Children living in voucher units may receive less protection from lead paint hazards than children living in public housing units because HUD applies different lead inspection standards to the two programs. HUD could ensure that children in the voucher program are provided better protection from lead by requesting and obtaining statutory authority to amend the voucher program inspection standard as indicated by analysis of the benefits and costs of amending the standard. Assessing and reporting on performance. Fully incorporating key elements of performance assessment—by developing comprehensive goals, improving performance measures, and adhering to reporting requirements—could better enable HUD to assess its own progress and target its resources toward lead efforts that maximize impact. Additionally, HUD may be missing opportunities to inform the Congress and the public about how HUD’s lead efforts have helped reduce lead poisoning in children. We are making the following nine recommendations to HUD: The Director of HUD’s Lead Office should ensure that the office more fully documents its processes for scoring and awarding lead grants and its rationale for award decisions. (Recommendation 1) The Director of HUD’s Lead Office should ensure that the office periodically evaluates its processes for scoring and awarding lead grants. (Recommendation 2) The Director of HUD’s Lead Office, in collaboration with PD&R, should set time frames for incorporating relevant data on lead paint hazard risks into the lead grant programs’ processes. (Recommendation 3) The Director of HUD’s Lead Office and the Assistant Secretary for PIH should collaborate to establish a plan to mitigate and address risks within HUD’s lead paint compliance monitoring processes. (Recommendation 4) The Director of HUD’s Lead Office and the Assistant Secretary for PIH should collaborate to develop and document procedures to ensure that HUD staff take consistent and timely steps to address issues of PHA noncompliance with lead paint regulations. (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of HUD should request authority from Congress to amend the inspection standard to identify lead paint hazards in the Housing Choice Voucher program as indicated by analysis of health effects for children, the impact on landlord participation in the program, and other relevant factors. (Recommendation 6) The Director of the Lead Office should develop performance goals and measures to cover the full range of HUD’s lead efforts, including its efforts to ensure that housing units in its rental assistance programs are lead-safe. (Recommendation 7) The Director of the Lead Office, in conjunction with PD&R, should finalize plans and develop a time frame for evaluating the effectiveness of the Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules, including an evaluation of the long-term cost effectiveness of the lead remediation methods required by the Lead Safe Housing Rule. (Recommendation 8) The Director of the Lead Office should complete statutory reporting requirements, including but not limited to its efforts to make housing lead-safe through its lead grant programs and rental-assistance programs, and make the report publicly available. (Recommendation 9) We provided a draft of this report to HUD for review and comment. We also provided the relevant excerpts of the draft report to CDC and EPA for their review and technical comments. In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, HUD disagreed with one of our recommendations and generally agreed with the remaining eight. HUD and CDC also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. EPA did not have any comments on the relevant excerpts of the draft report provided to them. In its general comments, HUD noted that the lead grant programs and HUD’s compliance assistance and enforcement of lead paint regulations have contributed significantly to, among other things, the low prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted housing. Further, HUD said the lead grant programs and compliance assistance and enforcement of lead paint regulations have played a critical part in developing and maintaining the national lead-based paint safety infrastructure. HUD asked that this contextual information be included in the background of the report. The draft report included detailed information on the purpose and scope of HUD’s lead grant programs, two key regulations related to lead paint hazards, and efforts to make housing lead-safe. Furthermore, the draft report provided context on other federal agencies’ role in establishing relevant standards and guidelines for lead paint hazards. We made no changes in response to this comment because we did not think it was necessary for background purposes. HUD disagreed with the draft report’s sixth recommendation to request authority from Congress to use the risk assessment inspection standard to identify lead paint hazards in the Housing Choice Voucher program. As discussed in the report, HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule requires a more stringent lead inspection standard (risk assessments) for public housing than for Housing Choice Voucher units, for which a weaker inspection standard is used (visual assessments). In its written comments, HUD said that before deciding whether to request the statutory authority to implement risk assessments for voucher units, it would need to conduct and evaluate the results of a statistically rigorous study on the impacts of requiring a lead risk assessment versus a visual assessment, such as the impact on leasing times and the availability of housing for low-income families. HUD further noted that such a study could explore whether alternative options to the full risk assessment standard (such as targeted dust sampling) could achieve similar levels of protection for children in the voucher program. We note that requesting and obtaining authority to amend the standard for the Housing Choice Voucher program would not preclude HUD from doing such a study. We acknowledge that the results of such a study might support a range of options. Therefore, we revised our recommendation to provide HUD with greater flexibility in how it might amend the lead inspection standard for the voucher program based on consideration of not only leasing time and availability of housing, as HUD emphasized in its written comments, but also based on the health effects on children. The need for HUD to review the lead inspection standard for the voucher program is underscored by the greater number of households with children served by the voucher program compared to public housing, as well as recent information indicating that more children with elevated blood lead levels are living in voucher units than in public housing. HUD generally agreed with our remaining eight recommendations and provided specific information about planned steps and other considerations related to implementing them. For example, in response to our first three recommendations on the lead grant programs, HUD outlined specific steps it plans to take, such as updating its guidance for scoring grant applications and reviewing its grant application scoring methods to identify potential improvements. In response to our fourth and fifth recommendations to the Director of HUD’s Lead Office on compliance monitoring and enforcement of lead paint regulations, HUD noted that PIH should be the primary office for these recommendations with the Lead Office providing support. While these recommendations had already recognized the need for the Lead Office to collaborate with PIH, we reworded them to clarify that it is not necessary for the Lead Office to have primary responsibility for their implementation. HUD generally agreed with our seventh and eighth recommendations, but noted some considerations for implementing them. For our seventh recommendation about performance goals and measures, HUD noted that it will re-examine the availability of information from the current housing databases to determine whether data on housing unit production can be added to the existing data collected. HUD noted if that information is not sufficient, it would need to obtain Office of Management and Budget approval and have sufficient funds for such an information technology project. For our eighth recommendation about evaluating the Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules, HUD noted if its own resources are insufficient, the time frame for implementing this recommendation may depend on the availability of funding for contracted resources. Finally, in response to our ninth recommendation, HUD said that it will draft and submit annual and biennial reports to the congressional authorizing and appropriations committees and then post the reports on the Lead Office’s public website. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant programs, HUD competitively awards grants to state and local jurisdictions, as authorized by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992). Title X requires each grant recipient to make matching contributions with state, local, and private funds (i.e., nonfederal) toward the total cost of activities. For the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant programs, the matching contribution has been set at no less than 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively, of the total grant amount. For example, if the total grant amount is $3 million, then state or local jurisdictions must provide at least $300,000 and $750,000, respectively, for each grant program, in additional funding toward the cost of activities. HUD requires lead grant applicants to include information on the sources and amounts of grantees’ matching contributions as part of their grant applications. Additionally, Title X requires HUD to award grants in part based on an applicant’s ability to leverage state, local, and private funds to supplement the federal grant funds. To identify the nonfederal funding sources grantees used in the lead hazard control grants, we selected and reviewed the lead grant applications of 20 HUD grantees and interviewed representatives from 10 of these. We selected these grantees based on their geographic locations; the number of HUD lead grants they had previously received; experience with HUD’s lead hazard control grants; and whether they have received both grants from 2013 through 2017. Grantees we selected included entities at the state, municipality, and county levels. Information from our grant application reviews and interviews of grantees cannot be generalized to all HUD grantees. Based on our review of the selected grant applications and interviews of selected grantees, we found that grantees planned to use the following types of nonfederal funding sources as their matching contributions to support their lead grants activities: State and local funds. Eighteen of the 20 grantees we selected noted that they planned to use state or local funding sources to supplement HUD’s grant funds. The state and local funding sources included state or local general funds and local property taxes or fees. For example, grantees in Connecticut, Baltimore, and Philadelphia used state or local general funds to cover personnel and operating costs. Additionally, grantees in Alameda County (California), Hennepin County (Minnesota), Malden, St. Louis, and Winnebago County (Illinois) planned to use local taxes, including property taxes or fees, such as real estate recording and building permit fees, to cover some costs associated with their lead hazard control grants activities. Community Development Block Grant funds. Ten of the 20 grantees we selected indicated that they planned to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds to cover part of the costs of their lead hazard control grants. CDBG program funds can be used by states and local communities for housing; economic development; neighborhood revitalization; and other community development activities. For example, grantees in Baltimore and Memphis noted in their grant applications that they planned to use the funds to cover costs related to personnel, operations, and training. Nongovernmental contributions or discounts. Eight of 20 grantees we selected stated that they anticipated some forms of nongovernmental contributions from nonprofit organizations or discounts from contractors to supplement the lead grants. For example, all eight grantees stated that they expected to receive matching contributions from nonprofit organizations. Table 2 summarizes the nonfederal funds by source that the 20 selected grantees planned to use, based on our review of these grantees’ applications. Furthermore, almost all of the selected grantees stated in their grant applications or told us that they expected to receive or have received other nonfederal funds in excess of their matching contributions. For example, 15 grantees stated that they generally required or encouraged property owners or landlords to contribute toward the lead hazard remediation costs. Also, grantees in Baltimore, District of Columbia, Lewiston, and Providence indicated that they expected to receive monetary or in-kind donations from organizations to help carry out lead hazard remediation, blood lead-level testing, or training. Additionally, the grantee in Alameda County (California) told us that they have received nonfederal funds from a litigation settlement with a private paint manufacturer. This report examines the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) efforts to (1) incorporate statutory requirements and other relevant federal standards in its lead grant programs; (2) monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations for its rental assistance programs; (3) adopt federal health guidelines and environmental standards for lead hazards in its lead grant and rental assistance programs; and (4) measure and report on its performance related to making housing lead-safe. In this report, we examine lead paint hazards in housing, and we focus on HUD’s lead hazard control grant programs and its two largest rental assistance programs that serve the most families with children: the Housing Choice Voucher (voucher) and public housing programs. To address all four objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, such as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, referred to as Title X throughout this appendix) and relevant HUD regulations, such as the Lead Safe Housing Rule and a January 2017 amendment to this rule. To examine trends in funding for HUD’s lead grant programs for the past 10 years, we also reviewed HUD’s budget information for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. We interviewed HUD staff from the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (Lead Office), Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), and other relevant HUD program and field offices. Finally, we reviewed our prior work and those of HUD’s Office of Inspector General. To address the first objective, we reviewed HUD’s Notices of Funding Availability (funding notices), policies, and procedures to identify HUD’s grant award processes for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant programs. For example, we reviewed HUD’s annual notices of funding availability from 2013 through 2017 to identify HUD’s scoring factors for evaluating grant applications. We compared HUD’s grant award processes in 2017 with Title X statutory requirements, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements for awarding federal grants, and relevant federal internal control standards. We also interviewed HUD staff about the agency’s grant application review and award processes. To determine the extent to which HUD’s grants have gone to counties in the United States potentially at high risk for lead paint hazards, we compared grantee locations from HUD’s lead grant data for grants awarded from 2013 through 2017 with county-level data on two indicators of lead paint hazard risk from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey—a continuous survey of households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. We analyzed HUD’s grant data to determine the number and dollar amount of grants received by each grantee, and the grantees’ addresses. We then conducted a geographic analysis to determine whether each HUD lead grant went to a county that met at least one, both, or neither of the two commonly known indicators of lead paint hazard risk—the age of housing and poverty level. We identified these two indicators through a review of relevant academic literature, agency research, and state lead modelling methodologies. We used data from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey because the data covered a time frame that best aligned with the 5 years of lead grant data (2013 through 2017). Using its county-level data, we calculated an estimated average percentage nationwide of housing units built before 1980 (56.9 percent) and an estimated average percentage nationwide of individuals living below the poverty level (17.5 percent). We used 1980 as a benchmark for age of housing because the American Community Survey data for age of housing is separated by the decade of construction and 1980 was closest in time to the 1978 federal lead paint ban. We categorized counties based on whether their levels of pre-1980 housing and poverty were above one, both, or neither of the respective national average percentage for each indicator. The estimated average nationwide and county-level percentages of the two indicators (e.g., older housing and poverty rate) are expressed as a range of values. For the lower and upper ends of the range, we generated a 95 percent confidence interval that was within plus or minus 20 percentage points. We classified a county as above the estimated average percentages nationwide if the county’s confidence interval was higher and did not overlap with the nationwide estimate’s confidence interval. We omitted the data for 12 counties that we determined were unreliable for our purposes. We analyzed data starting in 2013 because that was the first year for which these grant data were available electronically. We also interviewed HUD staff to understand their efforts and plans to perform similar analyses using indicators of lead paint hazard risk. To assess the reliability of HUD’s grant data, we reviewed documentation of HUD’s grant database, interviewed Lead Office staff on the processes HUD used to collect and ensure the reliability of the data, and tested the data for missing values, outliers, and obvious errors. To assess the reliability of the American Community Survey data, we reviewed statistical information from the Census Bureau and other publicly available documentation on the survey and conducted electronic testing of the data. We determined that the HUD grant data and American Community Survey county-level data on age of housing and poverty were sufficiently reliable for identifying areas at risk of lead paint hazards and determining the extent to which lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone to at-risk areas. Furthermore, to obtain information about how HUD works with grantees to achieve program objectives, we conducted in-person site visits to five grantees located in five localities (Alameda County, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; District of Columbia; and San Francisco, California); and interviewed an additional five grantees on the telephone (Hennepin County, Minnesota; Lewiston, Maine; Malden, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island; and Winnebago County, Illinois). In addition, we reviewed the grant applications of the 10 grantees we spoke to and an additional 10 grantees from 10 additional jurisdictions (State of Connecticut; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Monroe County, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; San Antonio, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Tucson, Arizona; and State of Vermont). We selected the 10 grantees for site visits or interviews based on the following criteria: geographic variation, number of years the grantees had HUD’s lead grants, and grantees that have received both types of lead grants from 2013 through 2017. We selected the 10 additional grantees’ applications for review based on geographic diversity and to achieve a total of two applications for each year during our 5-year time frame, with at least one application from each of the two HUD lead grant programs. As part of our review of selected grant applications, we identified nonfederal funding sources used by grantees, such as local tax revenues, contractor discounts, and property owner contributions. Information from the selected grantees and grant applications review cannot be generalized to those grantees we did not include in our review. Additionally, we interviewed representatives from housing organizations to obtain additional examples of any nonfederal funding sources, such as state or local bond measures, or low-interest loans to homeowners. To address the second objective, we also reviewed HUD guidance and internal memorandums related to its efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations for public housing agencies (PHA), the entities that manage HUD’s voucher and public housing rental assistance programs. In addition, we reviewed HUD’s documentation of databases it uses to monitor compliance, including the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker and the Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker, and observed HUD staff’s demonstrations of these databases. HUD staff also provided a demonstration of the Record and Process Inspection Data database (known as “RAPID”) used by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center to collect physical inspection data for public housing units. We obtained and reviewed information from HUD about instances of potential noncompliance with lead paint regulations by PHAs as of November 2017 and enforcement actions HUD has taken. We compared HUD’s regulatory compliance monitoring and enforcement approach to federal internal control standards. We interviewed staff from HUD’s Lead Office, Office of General Counsel, Office of Field Operations, and field staff, including four HUD regional directors in areas of the country known to have a high prevalence of lead paint hazards, about internal procedures for monitoring and enforcing compliance with lead paint regulations by the PHAs within their respective regions. To address the third objective on HUD’s adoption of federal health guidelines and environmental standards for lead paint hazards in its lead grant and rental assistance programs, we reviewed relevant rules and HUD documentation. To identify relevant federal health guidelines and environmental standards, we reviewed guidelines and regulations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and interviewed staff from each agency. To identify state and local laws with different requirements than these federal guidelines and standards, we obtained information from and interviewed staff from CDC’s Public Health Law Program and the National Conference of State Legislatures. We compared HUD’s requirements to CDC’s health guideline known as the “blood lead reference value” and EPA’s standards for lead-based paint hazards and lead-dust clearance standards. Finally, we reviewed information in HUD’s 2017 funding notices and lead grant programs’ policy guidance about requirements for grantees as they pertain to health guidelines and environmental standards. We also interviewed HUD staff about how HUD has used the findings from lead technical study grants to consider changes to HUD’s requirements and processes regarding identifying and addressing lead paint hazards for the grant programs. To address the fourth objective, we reviewed HUD documentation related to performance goals and measures, program evaluations, and reporting. For example, we reviewed HUD’s recent annual performance reports to identify goals and performance measures related to HUD’s efforts to make housing lead-safe. Further, we reviewed Title X to identify requirements related to evaluating and reporting on HUD’s lead efforts. We reviewed program evaluations and related studies completed by outside experts for the lead grant programs and interviewed staff from one of the organizations that conducted the evaluations. In addition, we interviewed Lead Office and PD&R staff about the agency’s plans to evaluate the requirements in the Lead Safe Housing Rule and reviewed corresponding agency documentation about these plans. Additionally, we reviewed the Lead Office’s most recent strategic plan (2009) and annual report (1997) on the agency’s lead efforts. We compared HUD’s use of performance goals and measures, program evaluations, and reporting against leading practices for assessing program performance and federal internal control standards. Finally, we interviewed staff from HUD to understand goals and performance measures used by the agency to assess their lead efforts. We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 to June 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition to the contact named above, John Fisher (Assistant Director), Beth Faraguna (Analyst in Charge), Enyinnaya David Aja, Farah Angersola, Carol Bray, William R. Chatlos, Anna Chung, Melinda Cordero, Elizabeth Dretsch, Christopher Lee, Marc Molino, Rebecca Parkhurst, Tovah Rom, Tyler Spunaugle, and Sonya Vartivarian made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["Lead paint in housing is the most common source of lead exposure for U.S. children. HUD awards grants to state and local governments to reduce lead paint hazards in housing and oversees compliance with lead paint regulations in its rental assistance programs. The 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Joint Explanatory Statement, includes a provision that GAO review HUD’s efforts to address lead paint hazards. This report examines HUD’s efforts to (1) incorporate statutory requirements and other relevant federal standards in its lead grant programs, (2) monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations in its rental assistance programs, (3) adopt federal health guidelines and environmental standards for its lead grant and rental assistance programs, and (4) measure and report on the performance of its lead efforts. GAO reviewed HUD documents and data related to its grant programs, compliance efforts, performance measures, and reporting. GAO also interviewed HUD staff and some grantees. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) lead grant and rental assistance programs have taken steps to address lead paint hazards, but opportunities exist for improvement. For example, in 2016, HUD began using new tools to monitor how public housing agencies comply with lead paint regulations. However, HUD could further improve efforts in the following areas: Lead grant programs. While its recent grant award processes incorporate statutory requirements on applicant eligibility and selection criteria, HUD has not fully documented or evaluated these processes. For example, HUD’s guidance is not sufficiently detailed to ensure consistent and appropriate grant award decisions. Better documentation and evaluation of HUD’s grant program processes could help ensure that lead grants reach areas at risk of lead paint hazards. Further, HUD has not developed specific time frames for using available local-level data to better identify areas of the country at risk for lead paint hazards, which could help HUD target its limited resources. Oversight. HUD does not have a plan to mitigate and address risks related to noncompliance with lead paint regulations by public housing agencies. We identified several limitations with HUD’s monitoring efforts, including reliance on public housing agencies’ self-certifying compliance with lead paint regulations and challenges identifying children with elevated blood lead levels. Additionally, HUD lacks detailed procedures for addressing noncompliance consistently and in a timely manner. Developing a plan and detailed procedures to address noncompliance with lead paint regulations could strengthen HUD’s oversight of public housing agencies. Inspections. The lead inspection standard for the Housing Choice Voucher program is less strict than that of the public housing program. By requesting and obtaining statutory authority to amend the standard for the voucher program, HUD would be positioned to take steps to better protect children in voucher units from lead exposure as indicated by analysis of benefits and costs. Performance assessment and reporting. HUD lacks comprehensive goals and performance measures for its lead reduction efforts. In addition, it has not complied with annual statutory reporting requirements, last reporting as required on its lead efforts in 1997. Without better performance assessment and reporting, HUD cannot fully assess the effectiveness of its lead efforts. GAO makes nine recommendations to HUD including to improve lead grant program and compliance monitoring processes, request authority to amend its lead inspection standard in the voucher program, and take additional steps to report on progress. HUD generally agreed with eight of the recommendations. HUD disagreed that it should request authority to use a specific, stricter inspection standard. GAO revised this recommendation to allow HUD greater flexibility to amend its current inspection standard as indicated by analysis of the benefits and costs."], "length": 12091, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "35702fb495ed7d8c2e9e8316e0e456a50378a632f98ada4b"}
{"input": "", "context": "Coal accounted for 17 percent of energy production (30 percent of electricity production) in the United States in 2016. To generate this energy, approximately 730 million tons of coal were mined domestically in 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, approximately 40 percent of which was produced on federal lands. As of 2016, state regulatory authorities and OSMRE had received financial assurances associated with coal mines that had been permitted to disturb approximately 2.3 million acres, according to OSMRE data. Coal is mined in two different ways: surface mining and underground mining. In surface coal mining, before the underlying coal can be extracted, the land is cleared of forests and other vegetation and topsoil is removed and stored for later use. Explosives or other techniques are then used to break up the overlying solid rock, creating dislodged earth, rock, and other materials known as spoil. Surface coal mines can cover an area of many square miles. In underground coal mining, tunnels are dug to access coal that is too deep for surface mining methods. In some cases, underground coal mines are designed to leave sufficient coal in the mine to support the overlying surface, and in other cases, they are designed to extract higher quantities of coal that results in subsidence of the overlying surface as mining progresses. In addition to disturbing the land surface, coal mining can affect water quality, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academies, and others. For example, mining can increase sediments in rivers or streams, which may negatively affect aquatic species. Moreover, mining can expose minerals and heavy metals to air and water, leading to a condition known as acid mine drainage, which can lead to long-term water pollution and harm some fish and wildlife species. Mining can also lower the water table or change surface drainage patterns. The surface effects of coal mining in the United States are regulated under SMCRA, which also created OSMRE to administer the act. SMCRA allows an individual state or Indian tribe to develop its own program to implement the act if the Secretary of the Interior finds that the program is in accordance with federal law. A state with an approved program is said to have “primacy” for that program. To obtain primacy, a state or Indian tribe submits to the Secretary of the Interior for approval a program that demonstrates that the state or tribe has the capability of carrying out the requirements of SMCRA. The program must demonstrate that the state or Indian tribe has, among other things, a law that provides for the regulation of the surface effects of coal mining and reclamation in accordance with the requirements of SMCRA, and a regulatory authority with sufficient personnel and funding to do so. Of the 25 states and four Indian tribes that OSMRE identified as having active coal mining in 2017, 23 states had primacy, and OSMRE manages the coal program in 2 states and for the four Indian tribes. SMCRA requires a mine operator to obtain a permit before starting to mine. The permit process requires operators to submit plans describing the extent of proposed mining operations and how and on what timeline the mine sites will be reclaimed. In general, an operator must reclaim the land to a use it was capable of supporting before mining or to an alternative postmining land use that OSMRE or the state regulatory authority deems higher or better than the premining land use. In reclaiming the mine site, operators must comply with regulatory standards that govern, among other things, how the reclaimed area is regraded, replanting of the site, and the quality of water flowing from the site. Specifically: Operators are generally required to return mine sites to their approximate original contour unless the operator receives a variance from the regulatory authority. To return to this contour, the surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area must closely resemble the general surface configuration of the land before mining and blend into and complement the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and spoil piles eliminated. Operators are required to demonstrate successful revegetation of the mine site for 5 years (in locations that receive more than 26 inches of rain annually) or 10 years (in drier areas). States have requirements for what vegetation may be planted depending on the approved postmining land use. For example, West Virginia’s regulations call for sites with a postmining land use of forest land to be planted with at least 500 woody plants per acre. The state specifies that at least five species of trees be used, including at least three of the species being higher value hardwoods, such as oak, ash, or maple. SMCRA requires that financial assurances be sufficient to ensure reclamation compliant with water quality standards, including those established by the Environmental Protection Agency or the states under the Clean Water Act. SMCRA’s implementing regulations also contain additional water protection requirements. For example, the regulations require that all surface mining and reclamation activities be conducted to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas and to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. The federal government also enacted SMCRA, in part, to implement an abandoned mine land program to promote the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to 1977, when SMCRA was enacted, and that continue to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, prevent or damage the beneficial use of land or water resources, or endanger the health or safety of the public. Specifically, Congress found that a substantial number of acres of land throughout the United States had been disturbed by surface and underground coal mining on which little or no reclamation was conducted. Further, it found that the impacts from these unreclaimed lands imposed social and economic costs on residents in nearby areas as well as impaired environmental quality. Since the abandoned mine land program was created, approximately $3.9 billion has been spent to reclaim abandoned mine lands, and there is at least $10.2 billion in remaining reclamation costs for coal mines abandoned prior to 1977, as of September 30, 2017, according to OSMRE. SMCRA generally requires operators to submit a financial assurance in an amount sufficient to ensure that adequate funds will be available for OSMRE or the state regulatory authority to complete the reclamation if the operator does not do so. The amount of financial assurance required is determined by the regulatory authority—OSMRE or the state—and is based on its calculation of the estimated cost to complete the reclamation plan it approved as part of the mining permit. Financial assurance amounts can be adjusted as the size of the permit area or the projected cost of reclamation changes. SMCRA also authorizes states to enact an OSMRE-approved alternative bonding system as long as the alternative achieves the same objectives. One kind of alternative bonding system is known as a bond pool. Under this type of system, the operator may post a financial assurance for an amount determined by multiplying the number of acres in the permit area by a per-acre assessment. The per-acre assessment may vary depending on the site-specific characteristics of the planned mining operation and the operator’s history of compliance with state regulations. However, the per-acre bond amount may be less than the estimated cost of reclamation. To supplement the per-acre bond, the operator generally must pay a fee for each ton of mined coal and may also be required to pay other types of fees. These funds are pooled and can be used to reclaim sites that participants in the alternative bonding system do not reclaim. Under OSMRE regulations, all alternative bonding systems must provide a substantial economic incentive for the operator to comply with reclamation requirements and must ensure that the regulatory authority has adequate resources to complete the reclamation plan for any sites that may be in default at any time. OSMRE regulations implementing SMCRA recognize three major types of financial assurances: surety bonds, collateral bonds, and self-bonds. A surety bond is a bond in which the operator pays a surety company to guarantee the operator’s obligation to reclaim the mine site. If the operator does not reclaim the site, the surety company must pay the bond amount to the regulatory authority, or the regulatory authority may allow the surety company to perform the reclamation instead of paying the bond amount. Collateral bonds include cash; certificates of deposit; liens on real estate; letters of credit; federal, state, or municipal bonds; and investment-grade rated securities deposited directly with the regulatory authority. A self-bond is a bond in which the operator promises to pay reclamation costs itself. Self-bonds are available only to operators with a history of financial solvency and continuous operation. To remain qualified for self-bonding, operators must, among other requirements, do one of the following: have an “A” or higher bond rating, maintain a net worth of at least $10 million, or possess fixed assets in the United States of at least $20 million. In addition, the total amount of self-bonds any single operator can provide shall not exceed 25 percent of its tangible net worth in the United States. Primacy states have the discretion on whether to accept self-bonds. State regulatory authorities and OSMRE reported holding a total of approximately $10.2 billion in surety bonds, collateral bonds, and self- bonds as financial assurances for coal mine reclamation in 2017. Of the total amount of financial assurances, approximately 76 percent ($7.8 billion) were in the form of surety bonds, 12 percent ($1.2 billion) in collateral bonds, and 12 percent ($1.2 billion) in self-bonds (see fig. 1). Twenty-four states reported holding surety bonds, 20 states reported holding collateral bonds, and 8 states reported holding self-bonds (see table 1). In addition, OSMRE officials identified 6 states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia—that have also established alternative bonding systems, such as bond pools. In a state with a bond pool, the operator may generally post a financial assurance for less than the full estimated cost of reclamation; in addition, the operator must pay into a bond pool. The pooled funds can be used to supplement forfeited financial assurances to reclaim sites that operators participating in the bond pool do not reclaim. States and OSMRE reported that operators forfeited more than 450 financial assurances for reclaiming coal mines between July 2007 and June 2016, with 13 of the 25 states reporting at least one forfeiture. States and OSMRE reported that the amount of financial assurance forfeited was sufficient to cover the cost of required reclamation in about 52 percent of the cases and did not cover the cost of required reclamation in about 22 percent of the cases. In the remainder of the cases (26 percent), the state or OSMRE reported that it had not yet determined if the financial assurance amount covered the reclamation costs that it was intended to cover. State and OSMRE officials said that it can take many years to fully reclaim a site and that it may take time for them to identify the extent of reclamation needed and to determine if the amount of financial assurance forfeited was sufficient to cover reclamation costs. State and OSMRE officials said there were several reasons why the amount of financial assurance obtained might not be sufficient to cover reclamation costs. For example, officials said the amount of financial assurance might not be sufficient if an operator mined in a manner inconsistent with the approved mining plan upon which the amount of financial assurance was calculated or if mining activity resulted in water pollution that was not considered when the amount of financial assurance was calculated. In cases where the amount of financial assurance does not cover the cost of reclamation, the operator remains responsible for reclaiming the mine site. However, OSMRE officials said that in those cases where the operator may be experiencing financial difficulties, it might be difficult for the states or OSMRE to compel the operator to complete the reclamation or provide additional funds to do so without having the operator go out of business or into bankruptcy. If the operator does not reclaim the site, the regulatory authority must use the forfeited financial assurance to do so. If the forfeited funds are not adequate, the site may not be fully reclaimed unless the regulatory authority either successfully sues the operator for more funds or provides any additional funds needed for reclamation. One other source of funds states can use to reclaim forfeited mines is civil penalties that the United States government collects from operators that violate conditions of their mining permits. OSMRE obligated approximately $2.8 million in civil penalties from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 for states to use to perform reclamation in cases where the financial assurance was not sufficient, according to agency officials. OSMRE has taken steps—including periodically reviewing financial assurance amounts, inspecting mine sites, and reviewing state programs that implement SMCRA—to oversee financial assurances and aspects of the mining and reclamation process that can affect whether the amount of financial assurances obtained will cover the cost of required reclamation. SMCRA requires OSMRE or the primacy state regulatory authority to calculate the amount of financial assurance required for each mine and to adjust the amount when the area requiring bond coverage increases or decreases or when the cost of future reclamation changes. OSMRE officials and state regulatory authority officials from four of the six states we interviewed said they generally review the amount of financial assurance at least every 2 1/2 years or when the mining plan has been modified in a way that may affect the amount of financial assurance required. Such periodic reviews are in part to help ensure that OSMRE and state regulatory authorities continue to hold an amount sufficient to complete required reclamation as conditions change. These reviews can lead to OSMRE or the state regulatory authority changing the amount of financial assurance required for a mine. For example: A state regulatory authority official in Utah said that the regulatory authority reviewed an existing mine permit in 2014, which led to it recalculating the estimated cost of reclamation on the basis of current costs. The state regulatory authority requested that the operator provide a financial assurance to cover the difference (approximately $195,000), in addition to the $445,000 financial assurance already in place. However, the official said that the operator—which had stopped mining the site in 2012 and filed for bankruptcy in 2013—did not provide the additional financial assurance amount. As a result, in 2017 the state regulatory authority collected the financial assurance that was in place (i.e., the operator forfeited its assurance). The official said in December 2017 that the state regulatory authority is determining the steps it will take to reclaim the site and expects that the forfeited amount will be sufficient to cover reclamation costs. OSMRE officials said that the agency reviewed a permit for a mine on Navajo tribal lands and determined that it needed to ask the operator to provide an additional financial assurance in the amount of $5.7 million. The increase was due to inflation and to include certain costs, such as the cost of mobilizing equipment needed for reclamation, that had inadvertently been excluded from the earlier calculation of the financial assurance required. The officials said that the operator provided the additional financial assurance amount. State regulatory authority officials in Wyoming said they review financial assurance amounts annually, and in 2017 they reduced the financial assurance for one mine by almost $35 million because of a substantial decline in fuel costs and the mine’s ability to share the cost of needed reclamation equipment with a neighboring mine. SMCRA requires OSMRE to make an average of at least one complete inspection per calendar quarter and one partial inspection per month for each active permit for which it is the regulatory authority to ensure that mines are in compliance with SMCRA and federal regulations. Complete inspections cover all inspection elements in OSMRE’s directive, while partial inspections may instead focus on issues that most frequently result in violations or a specific topic identified for oversight, according to OSMRE officials. In addition, OSMRE’s directive instructs the agency to inspect a sample of mines annually in states that have primacy to monitor and evaluate approved state programs’ compliance with SMCRA. The total number of inspections OSMRE is directed to conduct in primacy states is based on the number of inspectable units in each state. Complete inspections are to be done on 33 percent of those sites selected for inspection. Overall, OSMRE completed more inspections in primacy states than directed each year for evaluation years 2013 through 2016, according to agency data. For example, in evaluation year 2016, OSMRE’s directive called for it to conduct 1,225 inspections and OSMRE completed 1,388. As part of a complete inspection, OSMRE confirms that the operator is following the mining and reclamation plans to assure that the amount of financial assurance in place is adequate, according to OSMRE officials. If a violation is identified during an inspection, SMCRA requires OSMRE to issue a ten-day notice to the state regulatory authority or an immediate cessation order to the operator. If the violation increases the estimated cost of reclamation (e.g., if the operator disturbed more land than it was approved for) or an adequate financial assurance had not been collected, OSMRE or the state regulatory authority can request that the operator provide an additional financial assurance. For example: OSMRE issued a ten-day notice to the Pennsylvania regulatory authority in 2015 because a water treatment system for a mine in that state did not have a financial assurance. According to OSMRE officials, the state regulatory authority took appropriate action to resolve the situation by issuing an order for the operator to post a financial assurance within 7 days. During an inspection of a mine in Tennessee, a nonprimacy state, OSMRE determined that the operator had not correctly reclaimed a portion of the mine because the slope of the regraded area was too steep, according to an OSMRE official. For the reclamation work that would be needed to regrade that area, OSMRE determined that the operator needed to provide an additional financial assurance of $272,000. Under SMCRA, OSMRE is required to evaluate each primacy state’s coal program annually to ensure that it complies with SMCRA. SMCRA includes a requirement that the regulatory authority secure necessary financial assurances to assure the reclamation of each permitted mine site. While OSMRE’s directive on oversight of state and tribal regulatory programs does not instruct the agency to review state regulatory authority calculations of financial assurance amounts, it instructs OSMRE to focus on the state programs’ success in achieving the overall purposes of SMCRA. For example, OSMRE, in conducting its oversight, is to evaluate the states’ effectiveness in successfully reclaiming lands affected by mining and in avoiding negative effects outside of areas authorized for mining activities. If OSMRE’s review of a state program identifies an issue that could result in the state not effectively implementing, administering, enforcing, or maintaining all or any portion of its approved coal program, OSMRE can work with the state regulatory authority to develop an action plan to correct the issue. If a state regulatory authority does not take the necessary corrective action, OSMRE may begin the process of withdrawing approval for a part or all of the state’s primacy. In addition to annually evaluating state programs, OSMRE can conduct national or regional reviews on specific topics. For example, OSMRE conducted a national review in 2010 that examined how state regulatory authorities calculated the required amount of financial assurances for coal mine reclamation. The review examined financial assurance practices in 23 states and reported that on the basis of the sample of mining permits reviewed, OSMRE was unable to determine if the amount of financial assurances was adequate for at least one of the permits it reviewed in 10 of the 23 states. Among the potential issues OSMRE identified were errors in the methods state regulatory authorities used to calculate financial assurance amounts and insufficient information in the reclamation plan upon which to calculate reclamation costs. OSMRE has worked with the 10 state regulatory authorities to address the financial assurance issues identified in the 2010 review. For example, OSMRE’s review found that the regulatory authority in Pennsylvania did not secure sufficient financial assurances to complete reclamation plans, in part because amounts were not calculated based on the actual sizes of the areas excavated for mining. In August 2014, OSMRE and Pennsylvania’s regulatory authority agreed to an action plan to ensure that the financial assurances for all active and new permits would be calculated using the actual sizes of the excavated areas. According to an OSMRE official, as of February 2017, the state regulatory authority had recalculated the financial assurance amount for all mines and had secured the additional financial assurances needed from operators of all but two of the mines. State officials said in October 2017 that they were continuing to work to obtain the assurances required for the two mines. OSMRE’s 2010 review also found that financial assurances in Kentucky were not always sufficient to cover required reclamation costs, in part because the method Kentucky’s regulatory authority used to calculate financial assurance amounts did not factor in all costs, such as the cost of moving equipment to and from the reclamation site. In February 2011, OSMRE and Kentucky’s regulatory authority signed an action plan identifying steps needed to address the issues OSMRE had identified. However, in May 2012, OSMRE determined that the state regulatory authority’s proposed changes to its method for calculating financial assurance amounts was an improvement but would not result in the authority obtaining sufficient funds to cover required reclamation. As a result, OSMRE initiated the process of revoking Kentucky’s primacy for this aspect of its program. In response, Kentucky implemented regulations to increase the minimum financial assurance required. The regulations also required the state regulatory authority to evaluate financial assurance amounts every 2 years to determine whether they need to be increased, among other things. The state regulatory authority sent a set of program amendments to OSMRE designed to address the identified deficiencies, some of which OSMRE is currently reviewing. OSMRE and state regulatory authorities face a number of challenges in managing financial assurances for coal mine reclamation—including those related to self-bonding, unanticipated reclamation costs, and the financial stability of surety companies—according to federal and selected state regulatory authority officials, representatives from organizations associated with the mining and financial assurance industries, and representatives from environmental nongovernmental organizations whom we interviewed. Challenges facing OSMRE and state regulatory authorities related to self- bonding include the following: Not knowing the complete financial health of an operator. The information federal regulations require operators to provide to regulatory authorities may provide an incomplete picture of the financial health of an operator, according to some parties we interviewed. For example, the financial information that operators provide reflects their past financial health, which may not reflect the operators’ current financial position, according to OSMRE’s response to the 2016 petition seeking revisions to its self-bonding regulations. In addition, if an operator applying for a self-bond is a subsidiary of another company, the operator is not required by regulation to submit information on the financial health of its parent company. While the operator applying may have sufficient financial assets to qualify for self-bonding, if its parent company experiences financial difficulties, the operator’s assets may be drawn on to meet the parent’s obligations, which could worsen the financial health of the self-bonded operator. In addition, according to OSMRE officials, even if OSMRE or a state regulatory authority were to become aware that an operator’s parent company was at financial risk, it would be difficult for the agency to deny the operator’s request for a self-bond because eligibility is specific to the entity applying for the self-bond, according to regulations. OSMRE could change its self-bonding regulations to require more information, according to OSMRE officials. However, the financial relationships between parent and subsidiary companies have become increasingly complex, making it difficult to ascertain an operator’s financial health on the basis of information reported in company financial and accounting documents, according to officials. When OSMRE first approved its self-bonding regulations in 1983, it noted that it was attempting to provide rules that would allow self-bonding without necessitating regulatory authorities to employ financial experts to determine which companies should be allowed to self-bond. However, according to OSMRE officials, financial expertise is now often needed to evaluate the current complex financial structures of large coal companies, which was not envisioned when the regulations were developed. Difficulty in determining whether an operator qualifies for self- bonding. The regulatory authority in a given state may not be aware that an operator had self-bonded in other states, making it difficult for the agency to determine whether the operator qualifies for self- bonding, according to some parties we interviewed. Operators are only allowed to self-bond for up to 25 percent of their net worth in the United States, according to regulations. Regulatory authority decisions on accepting self-bonds generally focus on assessing activities occurring in a specific state, not nationwide, according to the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. As a result, the state regulatory authority or OSMRE may know whether an operator has applied for self-bonds in other states that if approved would exceed 25 percent of its net worth in total. Difficulty in replacing existing self-bonds with other assurances if needed. OSMRE and state regulatory authorities may find it difficult to get operators to replace existing self-bonds with another type of financial assurance when needed, according to some parties we interviewed. If an operator no longer qualifies for self-bonding (e.g., if it has declared bankruptcy), federal regulations require it to either replace self-bonds with other types of financial assurances or stop mining and reclaim the site. In either case, however, some parties noted that such actions could lead to a worsening of the operator’s financial condition, which could make it less likely that the operator will successfully reclaim the site. Some parties we interviewed have noted that regulatory authorities may be reluctant to direct the operator to replace a self-bond with another type of financial assurance and may instead allow the operator to keep mining so that any generated revenue could help the operator reclaim the site. For example, in 2015 the Wyoming regulatory authority determined that an operator no longer qualified for self-bonding and ordered it to replace a $411 million self-bond. However, the operator entered into bankruptcy without having replaced the self-bond. In this case, the state regulatory authority determined that reclamation was more likely to occur if the operator continued mining and allowed the operator to do so without a valid financial assurance. The operator replaced its self-bond as a part of its bankruptcy settlement approximately 17 months after the state regulatory authority’s order to replace the self-bond, according to OSMRE officials. However, if a self-bonded operator were to enter bankruptcy and did not secure a financial assurance to replace the self-bond or complete the required reclamation, the state regulatory authority would have to work through the bankruptcy proceedings to obtain funds for reclamation, according to OSMRE’s preamble to its 1983 self-bonding regulations. As a result, the state may recover only some, or possibly none, of the funds promised through the self- bond, and the cost of reclamation could fall on taxpayers. Difficulty in managing the risk associated with self-bonding. The risk associated with self-bonding is greater now than when the practice was first authorized under SMCRA, according to some parties we interviewed. According to SMCRA, the purpose of financial assurances is to ensure that regulatory authorities have sufficient funds to complete required reclamation if the operator does not do so. While SMCRA allows self-bonding in certain circumstances, when OSMRE first approved its self-bonding regulations, the agency did so noting that at the time there were companies financially sound enough that the probability of bankruptcy was small. Furthermore, the regulations stated that the intent was to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, the acceptance of a self-bond from a company that would enter bankruptcy. However, as previously mentioned, three of the largest coal companies in the United States declared bankruptcy in 2015 and 2016, and these companies held approximately $2 billion in self-bonds at the time, according to an OSMRE August 2016 policy advisory, making it a very different risk landscape than originally envisioned. Following these bankruptcies—and recognizing that the coal industry was likely to continue to face economic challenges for several more years— OSMRE initiated steps in 2016 to reexamine the role of self-bonding for coal mine reclamation. Specifically, as previously mentioned, OSMRE issued a policy advisory in August 2016 noting that given these circumstances, state regulatory authorities should exercise their discretion under SMCRA and not accept new or additional self-bonds for any permit until coal production and consumption market conditions reach equilibrium. OSMRE has reported that it is not likely for that to occur until at least 2021. OSMRE also announced in September 2016 that the agency planned to examine changes to its bonding regulations that would, among other things, help ensure that reclamation is completed if a self-bonded operator does not do so. However, following a review of department actions that could affect domestic energy production, Interior announced in October 2017 that it was reconsidering the need for and scope of potential changes to its bonding regulations. OSMRE officials said that they did not have a timeline for finalizing a decision on potential changes in its bonding regulations. In addition, OSMRE rescinded its August 2016 policy advisory that states take steps to assess whether operators currently using self-bonds can still quality to do so and that states not accept any new self-bonds. Similar issues involving bankruptcies of hardrock mining operators led the Bureau of Land Management to implement regulations in 2001 eliminating the use of self-bonding for hardrock mining. In doing so, the Bureau of Land Management determined that a self-bond is less secure than other types of financial assurances, especially in cases where commodity prices fluctuate. The agency also noted that operators that would otherwise be eligible to self-bond should not have a significant problem obtaining another type of financial assurance. In our previous work examining other types of environmental cleanup, we found that the financial risk to the government and the amount of oversight needed for self-bonds are relatively high compared to other forms of financial assurances. Furthermore, we also previously reviewed federal financial assurance requirements for coal mining, hardrock mining, onshore oil and gas extraction, and wind and solar energy production and found that of these activities coal mining is the only one where self-bonding was allowed. Because SMCRA explicitly allows states to decide whether to accept self-bonds, eliminating the risk that self-bonding poses to the federal government and states would require that SMCRA be amended. Unanticipated reclamation costs, such as those related to long-term treatment for water pollution, may arise late in a mine’s projected lifespan, and the operator may not have the financial means to cover the additional costs, according to OSMRE officials. Under SMCRA, OSMRE and state regulatory authorities are not to approve a permit for a coal mine if the regulatory authority expects the mine to result in long-term water pollution. As a result, since long-term water pollution is not anticipated to occur, the cost of addressing it would not be included in the initial financial assurance that the operator provides. If the regulatory authority later determines that long-term water treatment is needed, the regulatory authority must adjust the amount of financial assurance that the operator is required to provide. Some parties we interviewed have also noted that the costs and duration of long-term water treatment are not well defined and that surety bonds are not well-suited to provide assurance for such indefinite long-term costs. For example, according to the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, surety bonds are designed for shorter-term, defined obligations that have a high certainty for bond release following the completion of reclamation. To help address this challenge, some states have established, or allowed operators to establish, trust funds to help cover such unanticipated reclamation costs. For example, West Virginia established a fund, primarily supported through a tax on the amount of coal mined, to operate water treatment systems on forfeited sites. West Virginia’s regulatory authority is also working to evaluate permits for sites with water pollution to estimate water treatment costs within the state more precisely. Similarly, Pennsylvania allows operators to establish trust funds that are maintained by foundations and monitored by the state regulatory authority and are intended to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover the costs of long-term water treatment, according to state regulatory authority officials. In addition, the OSMRE-run coal program in Tennessee allows trust funds for water treatment, in part because an assurance system that provides an income stream may be better suited to ensuring the treatment of long-term water pollution than conventional financial assurances, according to an OSMRE notice in the Federal Register. The utility of surety bonds in providing a financial assurance depends on the surety company’s ability to pay the amount pledged if the operator forfeits. OSMRE regulations require that a surety company be licensed to do business in the state where a mine is located. Some parties we interviewed noted that surety companies have declared bankruptcy or experienced financial difficulties in the past and could experience similar difficulties in the future. In addition, two states reported recent issues related to surety companies. For example, state regulatory authority officials in Alabama said that a surety company that had provided surety bonds totaling $760,000 for four mines in that state had gone bankrupt or was insolvent. As of May 2017, the state had collected only $127,000. Similarly, state regulatory authority officials in Alaska said that as of August 2017, the state had not collected any part of a forfeited $150,000 surety bond because the surety company had gone bankrupt. In our previous work examining other types of environmental cleanup, we have found that the financial risk to the government and the amount of oversight needed for surety bonds are relatively low to moderate compared to other forms of financial assurances. Billions have been spent to reclaim mines abandoned prior to the financial assurance requirements SMCRA put in place, and billions more remain. Under SMCRA, self-bonding is allowed for coal mine operators with a history of financial solvency and continuous operation—the only type of energy production or mineral extraction activity we have reviewed for which this is allowed. Bankruptcies of coal mine operators in 2015 and 2016 have highlighted risks that OSMRE and state regulatory authorities face in managing self-bonding—a risk that may be greater today than when self-bonding was first authorized under SMCRA. If a self-bonded operator were to enter bankruptcy and does not provide a different type of financial assurance or complete the required reclamation, the regulatory authority and the taxpayer potentially assume the risk of paying for the reclamation. Although OSMRE said it would examine changes to its self- bonding regulations following recent bankruptcies, Interior recently said that it is reconsidering the need to do so. Because SMCRA explicitly allows states to decide whether to accept self-bonds, eliminating the risk that self-bonding poses would require amending SMCRA. Until such a change is made, the government will remain potentially at financial risk for future reclamation costs resulting from coal mines with unsecured financial assurances. Congress should consider amending SMCRA to eliminate the use of self- bonding as a type of financial assurance for coal mine reclamation. (Matter for Consideration 1) We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for review and comment. Interior did not provide written comments on our findings and matter for congressional consideration. OSMRE provided technical comments in an e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, the Acting Director of OSMRE, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. We selected a nonprobability sample of states to examine the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSMRE) oversight activities in more detail. We generally selected states that produced the most coal in 2015 but also selected states in order to achieve some variation in factors such as geographic location, the dominant type of coal mining conducted (e.g., surface or underground mining), whether the state had primacy, and whether the state allowed self-bonding (see table 2). In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Jonathan Dent, Cynthia Grant, Marya Link, Anne Rhodes-Kline, Sheryl Stein, Guiovany Venegas, and Jack Wang made key contributions to this report.", "answers": ["Coal accounts for 17 percent of domestic energy production. SMCRA requires coal mine operators to reclaim lands that were disturbed during mining and to submit a financial assurance in an amount sufficient to ensure that adequate funds will be available to complete reclamation if the operator does not do so. Recent coal company bankruptcies have drawn attention to whether financial assurances obtained by OSMRE and state agencies will be adequate to reclaim land once coal mining operations have ceased. GAO was asked to review management of financial assurances for coal mine reclamation. This report describes, among other things, the amounts and types of financial assurances held for coal mine reclamation in 2017 and the challenges that OSMRE and state agencies face in managing these financial assurances. GAO collected and analyzed data from OSMRE and 23 state agencies; reviewed federal laws, regulations, and directives; and interviewed OSMRE and state agency officials and representatives from organizations associated with the mining and financial assurance industries and environmental organizations. State agencies and the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) reported holding approximately $10.2 billion in surety bonds (guaranteed by a third party), collateral bonds (guaranteed by a tangible asset, such as a certificate of deposit), and self-bonds (guaranteed on the basis of a coal operator's own finances) as financial assurances for coal mine reclamation. OSMRE and state agencies face several challenges in managing financial assurances, according to the stakeholders GAO interviewed. Specifically, Obtaining additional financial assurances from operators for unanticipated reclamation costs, such as long-term treatment for water pollution, can be difficult. Determining the financial stability of surety companies has been challenging in certain instances. Self-bonding presents a risk to the government because it is difficult to (1) ascertain the financial health of an operator, (2) determine whether the operator qualifies for self-bonding, and (3) obtain a replacement for existing self-bonds when an operator no longer qualifies. In addition, some stakeholders said that the risk from self-bonding is greater now than when the practice was first authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). GAO's previous work examining environmental cleanup found that the financial risk to government and the amount of oversight needed for self-bonds are relatively high compared to other forms of financial assurances. GAO also previously reviewed federal financial assurance requirements for various energy and mineral extraction sectors and found that coal mining is the only one where self-bonding was allowed. However, because SMCRA explicitly allows states to decide whether to accept self-bonds, eliminating the risk that self-bonds pose to the federal government and states would require SMCRA be amended. GAO recommends that Congress consider amending SMCRA to eliminate self-bonding. Interior neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation."], "length": 6217, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "782123f3af90344e3508996b17d47cf959a4521d6b1886de"}
{"input": "", "context": "This report addresses frequently asked questions related to the overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for executive, administrative, and professional employees (the \"EAP\" or \"white collar\" exemptions). For a history of DOL regulations on the EAP exemptions, see CRS Report R45007, Overtime Exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards Act for Executive, Administrative, and Professional Employees , by David H. Bradley. For a broader overview of the FLSA, see CRS Report R42713, The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): An Overview . This report proceeds in three sections. First, there is an overview of the main federal statute on overtime pay—the FLSA—and of defining and delimiting the EAP exemptions. Second, there is a discussion of the applicability of the EAP exemptions. Finally, there is information on the EAP exemptions in the 2019 proposed rule and the 2016 final rule (which was finalized but invalidated before it took effect). The FLSA, enacted in 1938, is the main federal law that establishes minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for most, but not all, private and public sector employees. Section 7(a) of the FLSA specifies that unless an employee is specifically exempted in the FLSA, he or she is considered to be a covered \"nonexempt\" employee and must receive pay at the rate of one-and-a-half times (\"time and a half\") the employee's regular rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. When the FLSA was enacted, Section 13(a)(1) provided an exemption, from both the minimum wage (Section 6) and overtime (Section 7) provisions of the act, for \"any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, and professional capacity.\" Rather than define the terms executive, administrative, or professional employee, the FLSA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to define and delimit these terms \"from time to time\" by regulations . The general rationale for including the EAP exemption in the FLSA at the time of enactment was twofold. One, the nature of the work performed by EAP employees seemed to make standardization difficult and thus output of EAP employees was not as clearly associated with hours of work per day as it was for typical nonexempt workers. Two, bona fide EAP employees were considered to have other forms of compensation (e.g., above-average benefits, greater opportunities for advancement) not available to nonexempt workers. As mentioned, the Secretary of Labor is authorized to define and delimit the EAP exemptions. Including the first rulemaking on EAP exemptions in 1938, DOL has finalized nine rules. Although the determinations have changed over time, to qualify for an exemption currently under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA (i.e., not to be entitled to overtime pay), an employee generally has to meet three criteria: 1. The \"salary basis\" test: the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary. 2. The \"duties\" test: the employee must perform executive, administrative, or professional duties. 3. The \"salary level\" test: the employee must be paid above the threshold established in the rulemaking process, typically expressed as a per week rate. To qualify for the EAP exemption, an employee must be paid on a \"salary basis,\" rather than on a per hour basis. That is, an EAP employee must receive a predetermined and fixed payment that is not subject to reduction due to variations in the quantity or quality of work. The salary must be paid on a weekly or less-frequent basis. Job titles alone do not determine exemption status for an employee. Rather, the Secretary of Labor, through issuance of regulations, specifies the duties that EAP employees must perform to be exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. To qualify for the exemption for executive employees , all of the following job duties tests must be met: the employee's primary duty \"is management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof\"; the employee \"customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees\"; and the employee \"has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.\" To qualify for the exemption for administrative employees , both of the following job duties tests must be met: the employee's primary duty \"is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers\"; and the employee's primary duty \"includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.\" To qualify for the exemption for professional employees , the following job duties test must be met: The employee's primary duty is the performance of work requiring \"knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction\"; or work \"requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.\" In addition to the duties test, an employee must earn above a certain salary in order to qualify for the EAP exemption. Since the FLSA was enacted and the first salary thresholds were established in 1938, the standard salary level thresholds have been raised nine times. Prior to 2004, the salary level for exemption varied by the type of employee and the type of duty test. In addition to the standard salary level, in 2004 DOL created a \"highly compensated employee\" (HCE) exemption in which employees earning an amount above the standard EAP salary threshold annually are exempt from overtime requirements if they perform at least one (among many) of the duties of an EAP employee. Because the FLSA applies to \"employees,\" individuals who are classified as independent contractors are not covered by the FLSA provisions. Yes. There is no general exemption for nonprofits in the FLSA or the EAP overtime regulations. Coverage for workers in nonprofits, like other entities, is determined by the enterprise and individual coverage tests. It is important to note, however, that charitable activities often associated with nonprofits do not count as ordinary commercial activities and thus do not count toward the $500,000 threshold for enterprise coverage under the FLSA. Only the commercial activities of nonprofits (e.g., gift shops, fee for service activities) count toward that threshold. On the other hand, even if a nonprofit does not meet the enterprise test for coverage, individual employees in an otherwise exempt nonprofit may be covered by the FLSA and the overtime rules if they engage in interstate commerce (e.g., regularly making out of state phone calls, processing credit card transactions). Yes. Both the FLSA and the EAP overtime regulations apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs). Due to other provisions of the FLSA, however, many personnel at IHEs are not eligible for overtime on the basis of the duties test alone and thus are unaffected by changes in the EAP standard salary level for exemption. For example, in general, bona fide teachers are exempt regardless of salary level and thus are not eligible for overtime. Similarly, academic administrative personnel are exempt from overtime pay if they are paid at least the EAP salary level threshold or are paid at least equal to the entrance salary for teachers at the same institution. On the other hand, some IHE workers would be affected by changes in the EAP salary level for exemption, including postdoctoral researchers who are employees, nonacademic administrative employees, and other salaried workers who are not covered by another exemption. Finally, like some public sector employers, but unlike private sectors employers, public IHEs may have the option of using compensatory time (i.e., a rate of 1.5 hours for each hour of overtime), rather than cash payment, to meet the obligation of providing overtime compensation. Yes. There is no blanket exemption from FLSA and overtime rule coverage for state and local governments. In general, employees of state and local governments are covered by the overtime provisions of the FLSA and thus are affected by EAP rulemaking updating the salary level threshold for the EAP exemptions. That said, other FLSA provisions apply to state and local governments that affect the applicability of overtime rules to these public sector employees. One way in which FLSA overtime rules apply differently in the public sector relates to the mode of compensation. State and local governments may have the option of using compensatory time, at a rate of 1.5 hours for each hour of overtime, rather than cash payment to meet the obligation of providing overtime compensation—an alternative not available to private sector employers. Additionally, some public sector employees are not covered by the FLSA. For instance, certain state and local employees—elected officials, their appointees and staff who are not subject to civil service laws, and legislative branch employees not subject to civil service laws—are not covered and will not be affected by changes to the EAP exemptions. The FLSA provides partial exemptions from the overtime requirements for fire protection and law enforcement employees. Specifically, fire protection and law enforcement employees are exempt from overtime pay requirements if they are employed by an agency with fewer than five fire protection or law enforcement employees. In addition, the FLSA allows overtime for all fire protection and law enforcement employees (not just those in small agencies) to be calculated on a \"work period\" (i.e., 7 to 28 consecutive days) rather than the standard \"workweek\" period (i.e., 7 consecutive 24-hour periods). Yes. The FLSA overtime provisions apply to employees in the U.S. territories—American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. While the exemption for American Samoa has traditionally been set at 84% of the standard salary level, the other territories have been subject to the standard level. The application of the provisions of the FLSA is determined by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA, P.L. 104-1 ), which was enacted in 1995 and extends some FLSA provisions, including overtime provisions, and other labor and workplace laws to congressional employees. In addition, the CAA created the Office of Compliance (now the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights), headed by a five-member Board of Directors (Board), to enforce the CAA. Rulemaking on the EAP exemptions would apply to congressional staff if the Board adopts them and Congress approves the Board's regulations, pursuant to the process established in the CAA. In other words, regulations adopted by the Board do not have legal effect until they are approved by Congress. When the Secretary of Labor issued new regulations to update the EAP exemptions in 2004, the Board adopted them; but thus far, Congress has apparently not approved the 2004 overtime regulations. Thus, overtime regulations that were adopted by the Board and approved by Congress in 1996, based on DOL regulations originally promulgated in 1975, currently apply to congressional staff. In the absence of action by the Board and by Congress, the provisions in any future final rules would not change the status quo. Congress can pass legislation to repeal rules or compel new rules. For example, prior to the publication of the 2016 final rule, legislation was introduced that would have prohibited the Secretary of Labor from enforcing the final rule and would have required additional analysis from the Secretary before the issuance of any substantially similar rule in the future. Given that rulemaking on the EAP exemptions typically includes increases in the salary level threshold for the EAP exemption, a greater number of employees become eligible for overtime pay with each upward adjustment of the salary level. To comply with the proposed regulations, employers would have several options, including the following: pay overtime to newly covered EAP employees if they work more than 40 hours in a workweek; increase the weekly pay for workers near the salary threshold to a level above it so that the EAP employees would become exempt and thus not be eligible for overtime pay; reduce work hours of nonexempt (covered) employees to 40 or fewer so that overtime pay would not be triggered; hire additional workers to offset the reduction in hours from nonexempt employees; or reduce base pay of nonexempt workers and maintain overtime hours so that base pay plus overtime pay would not exceed, or would remain close to, previous employer costs of base pay plus overtime. This section provides an overview of the main provisions of the 2019 proposed rule on EAP exemptions. For context, some provisions of the 2016 final rule are discussed. A final rule updating the EAP exemptions was published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016, with an effective date of December 1, 2016. However, on November 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. On August 31, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that DOL exceeded its authority by setting the threshold at the salary level in the 2016 final rule ($913 per week) and thus invalidated it. Subsequently, DOJ appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which granted DOJ's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance until DOL issued new rulemaking on the EAP salary level. Thus, DOL is currently enforcing the EAP regulations in effect on November 30, 2016, which include a standard salary level of $455 per week. DOL issued a request for information (RFI) related to the EAP exemptions on July 26, 2017, seeking information from the public to assist in formulating a proposal to revise the exemptions. On March 22, 2019, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register to define and delimit EAP exemptions. The proposed rule would not only revise the regulations on the EAP exemptions but would also formally rescind the 2016 final rule. Such a rescission would provide that if any or all of the substantive provisions of the 2019 rule were invalidated or not put into effect, the EAP regulations would revert to those promulgated in the 2004 final rule. Due to the invalidation of the 2016 final rule (discussed above), DOL currently enforces the provisions of the 2004 final rule. The main changes to the EAP exemptions in the 2019 proposed rule, as summarized in Table 1 , include the following: an increase in the salary level test from the current $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $679 per week ($35,308 annually); an increase in the annual salary threshold for the HCE exemption from $100,000 to $147,414; an allowance that up to 10% of the standard salary level may be comprised of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentive payments, and commissions; a salary level of $455 per week for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and of $380 in American Samoa; and an increase in the \"base rate\" weekly salary level for employees in the motion picture industry from $695 per week to $1,036 per week. Since the FLSA was enacted in 1938, the salary level threshold has been increased eight times, including the proposed 2019 increase. Each of the previous increases have occurred through intermittent rulemaking by the Secretary of Labor, with periods between adjustments ranging from 2 years (1938–1940) to 29 years (1975–2004). Since 1938, measures of the salary level have fluctuated according to DOL's identification of data sources most suitable for studying wage distributions and the department's determinations of the proportion and types of workers who should be below salary thresholds, as well as its determinations of whether regional, industry, or cost-of-living considerations should be factored into salary tests. Starting with the 2004 final rule, DOL has used survey data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) in determining the salary level for the EAP exemptions, albeit with different methodological choices. Effective January 2020 (approximately), the standard salary level threshold would equal the 20 th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time non-hourly workers in the lowest-wage Census region, which in 2019 is the South, and/or in the retail sector nationwide. In 2020, about 20% of full-time salaried workers in the South region and/or the retail sector nationwide are estimated to earn at or below $679 per week ($35,308 annually). Effective January 2020 (approximately), the HCE salary level for the EAP exemptions would equal the annual earnings equivalent of the 90 th percentile of the weekly earnings of full-time non-hourly workers nationally. In 2020, 90% of full-time non-hourly workers are estimated to earn at or below $147,414 per year. Effective January 2020 (approximately), the salary level for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands would be $455 per week, and in American Samoa it would be $380 per week. Except for American Samoa, this would depart from past regulations by establishing a salary threshold for the territories below the standard level. Effective January 2020 (approximately), the motion picture industry employee salary level for the EAP exemption would be $1,036 per week. This level was derived by increasing the previous threshold ($695 per week) proportionally to the increase in the standard salary level. This would continue a special salary test created in 1953 for the motion picture industry that provides an exception to the \"salary basis\" test. Specifically, employees in the motion picture industry may be classified as exempt if they meet the duties tests for EAP exemption and are paid a \"base rate\" (rather than on a \"salary basis\") equal to the salary level for this exemption. The 2019 proposed rule would implement a commitment by DOL to update the EAP salary level thresholds every four years by submitting an NPRM for comment. If the 2019 proposed rule is finalized, DOL would publish its first proposed update on January 1, 2023, and subsequent updates every four years thereafter. The future salary level updates would be based on the same data source (CPS) and methodology of the salary levels established in the 2019 proposed rule: the standard salary level would be adjusted to the 20 th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census region and/or in the retail sector, the HCE salary level threshold would be adjusted to the 90 th percentile of annual earnings of full-time non-hourly workers nationally, and the quadrennial NPRM would seek comment on whether to update the salary level for the territories established in the 2019 proposed rule. The 2019 proposed rule would expand overtime coverage to EAP employees through a higher salary level threshold rather than through additional classes of employees. As such, EAP employees making between $455 per week (the current effective level) and the new rate of $679 per week in 2019 would likely become nonexempt (i.e., covered) by the overtime provisions and entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. It is difficult to project the number of employees currently exempt under the EAP exemptions who would no longer be exempt under the 2019 proposed rule. This is due in part to uncertainty about potential employer responses, such as increasing salaries above the new threshold to maintain exemption for EAP employees. DOL estimates, with caveats, that approximately 4.9 million workers would be affected by the proposed rule. DOL identifies two groups in particular that would be affected—newly covered workers and workers with strengthened protections. Specifically, DOL estimates the following: In the first year under the provisions of the 2019 proposed rule, about 1.3 million EAP employees would become newly entitled to overtime pay due to the increase in the salary threshold: about 1.1 million employees in this group meet the duties test for the EAP exemption but earn between the current standard salary threshold ($455 per week) and the proposed threshold ($679 per week); and an additional 201,000 employees in this group meet the HCE duties test for exemption, but not the standard test, and earn at least the current HCE salary threshold ($100,000 per year) but less than the proposed threshold ($147,414 per year). An additional 3.6 million workers would receive \"strengthened\" overtime protections, including the following: An additional 2.0 million white collar workers who are paid on a salary basis and earn between the current salary threshold of $455 per week and the proposed threshold of $679 per week but do not meet the EAP duties test (i.e., they perform nonexempt work but might be misclassified) would gain overtime protections because their exemption status would not depend on the duties test. In other words, this group of workers would gain overtime coverage because the higher salary threshold would create a clearer line exemption test and reduce misclassification for exemption purposes. About 1.6 million salaried workers in blue collar occupations whose overtime coverage would have been clearer with the higher salary threshold. As DOL notes, this group of workers should currently be covered by overtime provisions but may not be due to worker classification. By comparison, DOL estimated that in the first year under the provisions of the 2016 final rule, approximately 13.1 million workers would have been affected. This total would have included about 4.2 million EAP employees who would have become newly entitled to overtime pay due to the increase in the salary threshold and an additional 8.9 million workers who would have received \"strengthened\" overtime protections. The data in Table 2 provide a summary of the estimated numbers of affected workers under the 2019 proposed rule and the 2016 final rule.", "answers": ["The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, is the main federal law that establishes general wage and hour standards for most, but not all, private and public sector employees. Among other protections, the FLSA establishes that covered nonexempt employees must be compensated at one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The FLSA also establishes certain exemptions from its general labor market standards. One of the major exemptions to the overtime provisions in the FLSA is for bona fide \"executive, administrative, and professional\" employees (the \"EAP\" or \"white collar\" exemptions). The FLSA grants authority to the Secretary of Labor to define and delimit the EAP exemption \"from time to time.\" To qualify for this exemption from the FLSA's overtime pay requirement, an employee must be salaried (the \"salary basis\" test); perform specified executive, administrative, or professional duties (the \"duties\" test); and earn above an established salary level threshold (the \"salary level\" test). In March 2019, the Secretary of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to make changes to the EAP exemptions. The 2019 proposed rule would become effective around January 2020. The major changes in the 2019 proposed rule include increasing the standard salary level threshold from the previous level of $455 per week to $679 per week and committing the Department of Labor (DOL) to updating the EAP exemptions every four years through the rulemaking process. The 2019 proposed rule does not change the duties and responsibilities that employees must perform to be exempt. Thus, the 2019 proposed rule would affect EAP employees at salary levels between $455 and $679 per week in 2020. DOL estimates that about 4.9 million workers would be affected in the first year, including about 1.3 million EAP employees who would become newly entitled to overtime pay and an additional 3.6 million workers who would have overtime protection clarified and thereby strengthened. This report answers frequently asked questions about the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the EAP exemptions, and the 2019 proposed rule that would define and delimit the EAP exemptions."], "length": 3568, "dataset": "gov_report", "language": "en", "all_classes": null, "_id": "ed4cf9cae692b961a7266646aafefec8f83ffa09c62c5887"}