prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: 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 


Report 2: Global defense posture is an enabler of U S  defense activities and military operations overseas and is a central means of defining and communicating U S  strategic interests to allies, partners, and adversaries  It is driven by a hierarchy of national-level and DOD-specific guidance, which includes the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy  Under DOD Instruction 3000 12, global defense posture includes three elements: Forces: forward stationed or rotationally deployed forces, U S  military capabilities, equipment, and units (assigned or allocated)  Footprint: networks of U S  foreign and overseas locations, infrastructure, facilities, land, and prepositioned equipment  Agreements: treaties and access, transit, support, and status- protection agreements and arrangements with allies and partners that set the terms regarding the U S  military’s presence within the territory of the host country  EUCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands and is responsible for missions in all of Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of the Middle East, and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans (see figure 1)  EUCOM evaluates the adequacy of posture in Europe to support relevant plans and achieve military objectives  EUCOM shares responsibility with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for U S  military relations with allies and partners in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  The number of U S  military sites located in EUCOM’s area of responsibility and the number of military personnel assigned to Europe have decreased substantially since the end of the Cold War, and two heavy combat brigades had been deactivated by the end of fiscal year 2014  As of May 2016, EUCOM supported one airborne infantry brigade and one Stryker brigade, as well as approximately 62,000 military personnel across approximately 250 sites  Since 2009, we have reported on issues related to DOD’s efforts to estimate and report on the total cost of its global defense posture  In 2009, we identified weaknesses in DOD’s approach for adjusting its global defense posture and recommended, among other things, that DOD issue guidance for estimating total costs for global defense posture and modify its annual report to Congress to include the total cost to complete each planned posture initiative  In February 2011, we reported that EUCOM lacked comprehensive cost data in a key posture planning document and that therefore decision makers lacked critical information that they needed to make fully informed posture decisions  We recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise the Joint Staff’s posture planning guidance to include direction on how the combatant commands should analyze costs and benefits when considering changes to posture and to require that posture plans include comprehensive cost estimates  DOD agreed with the recommendations in both reports and subsequently took steps to implement them  In June 2012, we reported that DOD did not fully understand the cost implications of two posture initiatives in Europe—including its decision to return two heavy brigades from Europe to the United States—and that key posture planning documents did not completely and consistently include cost data  We recommended that DOD fully estimate the cost implications of these two initiatives, clarify components’ roles and responsibilities for estimating costs, and develop a standard reporting format for cost data  DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and has taken steps to implement two of them  Following the President’s June 2014 announcement of ERI, EUCOM identified five lines of effort that it would pursue under ERI, as described in table 1  Three of ERI’s lines of effort are expected to enhance DOD’s posture in Europe  For example, DOD is using ERI to increase the forces present in Europe by rotating an armored brigade combat team and elements of a combat aviation brigade to Europe every nine months  DOD also plans to enhance its footprint in Europe by using ERI funding to make infrastructure improvements and establish locations for prepositioned equipment  Finally, in order to implement ERI’s lines of effort and support U S  activities, DOD is partnering with the State Department to negotiate host nation agreements that, among other things, establish protections for U S  military personnel and provide DOD the authority to improve host nation installations and infrastructure  DOD is also supporting additional exercises and training to improve interoperability with partner countries while providing them with the capability and capacity to defend themselves, but these efforts are not expected to affect DOD’s long-term posture in Europe  Since 2014, DOD has expanded ERI’s objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to posture in Europe  In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, ERI’s objective was to provide short-term reassurance to allies, and the initiative had little funding for long-term enhancements to posture  DOD focused its efforts on bolstering the security and capacity of NATO allies and partners by funding training, conducting exercises, and temporarily rotating Army and Air Force units to Eastern Europe  In fiscal year 2017, DOD expanded ERI’s objectives to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail  Recognizing that ERI’s expanded objectives would require DOD to alter its posture in Europe, DOD has requested increased ERI funding  DOD will have requested approximately $4 5 billion in ERI funding for posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017; about $3 2 billion of this was requested for use in fiscal years 2017  During the time of our review, EUCOM had identified a need for additional funding over the next several years for additional posture enhancements in Europe  Specific details about EUCOM’s future posture plans and funding requirements were omitted because they are classified  DOD has requested increased funding to support planned enhancements to all three posture elements—forces, footprint, and agreements—in Europe: Force deployments to Eastern Europe: In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Army deployed armored brigade combat teams to Eastern Europe to provide short-term reassurance to allies and partners, which DOD officials said included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, among other countries  These short-duration deployments were intermittent and focused on demonstrating U S  commitment to allies and partners  Additionally, the Air Force deployed air units on 4- month rotations to help protect allies’ and partners’ air space  In the fiscal year 2017 budget justification materials provided to Congress, as ERI’s objectives expanded, DOD requested funding to retain Air Force fighter units in Europe  It also began deploying a rotational armored brigade combat team so that one such brigade would be present in Europe at all times (see figure 2)  The first deployment, in January 2017, included approximately 4,000 personnel, 90 Abrams tanks, 90 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles, and 112 supporting vehicles  Additionally, DOD began procuring and prepositioning equipment for two planned armored brigades in Europe, one of which will include modernized tanks, as an additional deterrent  According to Army officials, these force enhancements in Europe give the Army the ability to quickly deploy a substantial ground force in the event of a conflict  As of April 2017, DOD was still evaluating force enhancements in Europe as part of its fiscal year 2018 budget submission  Specific details were omitted because they are classified  New locations and improvements to infrastructure: Since ERI was announced in 2014, DOD has established new enduring locations in Europe  An enduring location is designated by DOD and is a geographic site that DOD expects to access and use to support U S  security interests for the foreseeable future  During our review, DOD had not yet determined whether additional enduring locations would be needed to support ERI  In addition to establishing new enduring locations, DOD plans to improve installations and infrastructure  From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, DOD requested funding in its budget justification submissions to Congress for major military construction projects in nine European countries and to improve support infrastructure—such as roads, railheads, and airbasing—at these locations  Major military construction projects are those projects specified in National Defense Authorization Acts  During the time of our review, DOD was considering addition improvements to existing infrastructure, specific details of which are classified  According to DOD and State Department officials, DOD is also working with U S  allies and partners to determine what infrastructure improvements to roads, railroads, and bridges need to occur outside enduring locations to allow rapid response to a conflict  New host nation agreements: Since ERI was announced, DOD and the State Department have completed host nation agreements with six European nations in support of ERI efforts: Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, implementing previous agreements, in order to facilitate U S  construction on installations and areas in the host country (June and July 2015 and June 2016)  Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, providing an overarching framework for protections for U S  personnel and U S  access to installations in host nations (January 2017)  DOD is using a separate process instead of its established posture planning process to plan for ERI’s posture initiatives because of the emergent nature of ERI requirements and their having been funded through the OCO budget  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  As a result of its not using its established processes, DOD is not prioritizing posture initiatives funded under ERI against posture initiatives funded through its base budget, estimating these initiatives’ long-term sustainment costs, or communicating their future costs to Congress  DOD is planning ERI posture initiatives outside of its established processes and is funding these enduring initiatives—including rotational deployments and infrastructure projects—out of its OCO budget  We have previously identified risks associated with DOD’s practice of completing construction projects outside of its established processes  For example, in September 2016 we reported that DOD had not issued implementing guidance to establish a formal process for reevaluating ongoing contingency construction projects when missions change and that as a result DOD risked completing unnecessary construction projects  We also found that DOD lacked visibility into the amount of funding it was spending on operations and maintenance-funded construction projects in U S  Central Command and that this increased financial risk and duplication risk for the department  Like U S  Central Command, EUCOM is using DOD’s OCO budget to fund construction projects and is planning those projects outside of its established processes  Based on our analysis, DOD plans to spend approximately $503 million from fiscal year 2015 through the end of fiscal year 2017 on ERI-related construction projects—about $279 million for major military construction projects and $224 million for minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair), as shown in table 2  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, DOD’s global defense posture processes apply to DOD forces, footprint, and agreements that support joint and combined global operations and plans in foreign countries  According to the instruction, DOD’s components use these processes to address planning for global defense posture, resource requirements, and policy development, among other things  Further, it states that these processes are overseen by an executive council that provides recommendations, inputs, and expertise on global defense posture to key national strategy products  DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process serves as the annual resource allocation process for DOD and is intended to enable DOD to align resources to prioritized capabilities; balance necessary warfighting capabilities with risk, affordability, and effectiveness; and provide mechanisms for making and implementing fiscally sound decisions in support of the national security strategy and the national defense strategy  DOD is using a separate and evolving process to plan ERI’s posture initiatives—rather than following its established processes—because ERI is being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the department has recognized that the short-term planning process used to develop DOD’s OCO budget can create problems when it is used to plan for enduring initiatives  As a result, DOD has developed a separate process to plan for ERI  As part of the fiscal year 2018 planning process, EUCOM provided a prioritized list of potential requirements and an estimate of its annual costs by appropriation account to the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, DOD completed its review and provided recommendations to DOD’s senior leaders for approval in October 2016 and final decisions were made within DOD in April 2017  The specific criteria by which DOD assessed EUCOM’s potential requirements are classified  DOD is requesting funds for ERI’s posture initiatives as part of its OCO budget, which is generally intended to be short-term funding for ongoing contingency operations  In February 2009, the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria to assist in determining whether funding properly belonged in DOD’s base budget or in its OCO budget  These criteria were updated in September 2010 and currently indicate that funding requests should be for specific geographic areas where combat or direct combat support operations occur (such as Iraq and Afghanistan)  Further, budget items must meet other criteria  For example, OCO funding requests may be for constructing facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat operations  In these cases, the level of construction should be the minimum needed to meet operational requirements, and construction completed at enduring locations must be tied to surge operations or major changes in operational requirements

ground_truth: 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.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget  We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in OCO budget requests  DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose revised OCO criteria  As of May 2017, the department has not implemented our recommendation  DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or communicate future ERI costs to Congress  When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets  DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture Executive Council  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, the Executive Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction projects and international agreements  The Executive Council’s endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations  For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of prepositioned equipment in Europe  Officials representing the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture initiatives funded under ERI  However, DOD could not provide documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture initiatives funded through the base budget  Further, the Global Posture Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  More detailed information about these proposals, and their potential funding requirements, are classified  According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives, because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not directly affect the services’ base budgets  However, because it does not prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget  For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture initiatives funded in its base budget  Consequently, the Army would be forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the department  In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and construct new facilities  DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs  DOD’s guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of understanding both the size and timing of costs  Finally, our prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and assessing program affordability  DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would have under their established processes  Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets  Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and construction could be substantial  Army and Air Force officials said that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future base budget submissions  DOD officials said that we correctly applied DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment  Additionally, officials said that EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future costs  Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to evaluate the affordability of these initiatives  Further, in the absence of these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred  The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain information about ERI’s future costs  This is in contrast to the way DOD submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation, leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to allocate resources  In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI  We previously reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process  Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously  An official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission  Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing  For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in Poland to store Army equipment  Officials told us that, as a result, this construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal year 2018 request for funding  A senior Army officer told us that completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe  Officials from the U S  Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016 NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and engineering design for this project  Officials expect additional funding will be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019  However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has been approved by NATO may be required to meet U S -specific requirements  Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations will provide moving forward  Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget  The committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget  Both GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when allocating resources  DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said that the department is not required to provide this information  As a result, DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to achieve ERI’s objectives  If DOD does not provide Congress with projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives  Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and enhance posture in Europe to support a new U S  strategy toward Russia  DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives such as ERI  By following a separate planning process when funding ERI with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s future costs  DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot be sustained over the long term  Furthermore, Congress is likely to face challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term  To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes  (Recommendation 1) To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets  (Recommendation 2) To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and comment  DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations, and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget  In its comments, DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts  These are positive steps  DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force requirements through its global force management process, adding that it will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so  However, we continue to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes  Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to evaluate long-term posture priorities  If DOD does not prioritize the forces and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded under ERI  Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the department  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs and plan for these costs in future budgets  In its comments, DOD stated that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s annual program and budget review process  DOD also commented that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds  However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either service incorporated them into their future budgets  Using OCO funds would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets  Additionally, not developing robust estimates for sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its OCO budget  In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate funding to sustain posture investments in Europe  DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  In its comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs  Moreover, DOD commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when preparing budget estimates for Congress  However, DOD does not state whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any underlying assumptions with its budget submission  It is critical that DOD increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U S  European Command  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 (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@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 major contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in fiscal years 2015 through 2017  This includes $157 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air Force  According to U S  European Command officials, Navy and Marine Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military construction or exercise-related construction projects  The tables below do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction projects  Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables 3 and 4  The information in these tables was provided by U S  Army Europe and U S  Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of minor military construction and repair projects  The data provided did not identify the appropriations used for each project  Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately used for a given project  In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  FRA and FTA’s approaches to their rail safety oversight missions each have strengths and limitations, including how the agencies develop safety regulations, conduct inspections, and carry out enforcement  Compared to FRA’s long-standing role in providing safety oversight over railroads, FTA is in the process of implementing significant changes to its program for rail transit safety oversight after being granted new authorities in MAP- 21 and the FAST Act  With respect to regulations, FRA’s extensive and well-established safety regulations are a strength  FTA has made some progress toward developing appropriate safety regulations, such as identifying subjects for potential regulatory action  With respect to inspections, FRA’s use of a risk-based approach to distributing inspection resources is a strength  FTA has sought to address previously identified deficiencies in state safety oversight by recommending that state safety agencies develop risk-based inspection programs  FTA, though, has not provided states guidance for these efforts  With respect to enforcement, FRA’s use of its enforcement authorities is a strength  FTA is also implementing new statutory requirements that state safety agencies have enforcement authorities but does not have a process or methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of these enforcement practices  Extensive and well-established safety regulations are a strength of FRA’s safety oversight program based on studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators and stakeholder organizations  According to NTSB, FRA’s railroad safety regulations are an important and effective part of its oversight program  Our previous work reported that according to stakeholders, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee provides a collaborative environment where stakeholders in the rail community work with FRA to identify issues and proposals for safety standards and regulations that improved the quality of railroads’ safety initiatives and fostered a greater level of compliance with safety regulations  This is consistent with views of stakeholders we spoke with, who characterized FRA’s safety regulations as a strength  An industry association told us that FRA’s regulations promote safety by helping to ensure that no operator falls below a minimum threshold for safe operations, while a rail operator told us that federal regulations help to standardize the operating environment and prevent a patchwork of various state regulations  Four stakeholders also characterized the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, which plays a large role in crafting FRA’s railroad safety regulations, as effective and inclusive  However, based on studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators’ and stakeholders’ organizations, FRA faces limitations in its efforts to regulate safety across railroad systems that differ from one another and sometimes change more quickly than the federal regulatory process  Five railroad operators and an industry association told us that some of FRA’s safety regulations do not account for differences in railroads or innovation in safety practices, with three railroad operators stating that this approach requires the extensive use of waivers for particular regulations  Further, two railroad operators and a rail transit operator we spoke with stated that additional federal regulations are needed to provide minimum baseline requirements in specific areas of railroad safety such as medical fitness for duty  In 2014, NTSB also found that FRA needs to do more to regulate particular safety issues including medical fitness for duty and signal protection  FRA officials acknowledged that time and resources are two of the primary challenges that the agency faces when developing safety regulations but also noted additional ways in which the agency can require railroads to adopt safety practices  FRA officials described the process of creating or significantly amending a regulation as involving years of work, even before the agency commences with the process of drafting a rule  The officials also noted that the agency has additional tools to compel railroads to adopt safety practices  For example, FRA officials discussed the use of compliance agreements, in which railroads can have fines reduced in exchange for adopting safety measures that go beyond what FRA regulations require  FRA officials are considering the use of performance-based regulations as they update their safety regulations  As noted above, FRA’s proposed regulations regarding passenger equipment safety incorporates performance -based safety requirements, rather than explicit safety targets or tolerances  FRA has promulgated performance-based regulations about the implementation of positive train control, a communications-based system designed to prevent certain types of train accidents, as well as system safety programs that set general safety parameters and thresholds by which successful performance is governed  FRA’s consideration of performance-based regulations is in line with federal guidance  OMB’s Circular A-4 states that performance standards “are generally superior to engineering or design standards because performance standards give the regulated parties the flexibility to achieve regulatory objectives in the most cost-effective way ” Additionally, under Executive Order 12866, agencies should (to the extent permitted by law and where applicable) identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt  However, as the language of OMB’s Circular A-4 and Executive Order 12866 suggest that performance-based regulations are not always feasible, studies of performance-based regulations find that as with any other form of regulation, performance-based standards have trade-offs  FRA officials told us that under certain circumstances, performance- based regulations are appropriate for issues regarding design, maintenance, operation, and technology-driven safety requirements  FRA officials we spoke with did not think performance-based standards are appropriate for areas that require standardization  One example is track safety standards, where the need for different operators to use the same equipment precludes a performance-based approach that allows railroads to meet requirements through different means  FRA officials added that a key aspect of the success of performance-based regulations concerns how railroads demonstrate compliance  This concern is consistent with other studies of performance-based regulations, which find that these regulations are most appropriate when regulators have capacity to measure and monitor performance  Though FTA has made progress assessing the state of rail transit safety standards, a limitation of FTA’s rail transit safety oversight program is the lack of federal rail transit safety regulations, which may contribute to inconsistent safety practices across the rail transit industry, according to studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators and stakeholder organizations  NTSB reported that the structure of FTA’s oversight process leads to inconsistent practices, inadequate standards, and marginal effectiveness  In addition, a 2016 DOT OIG report found that because FTA’s safety standards are voluntary, they are unenforceable  In 2012, FTA gained the authority to issue safety regulations, though it has not done so yet, and NTSB and other stakeholders we spoke with indicated that the lack of such federal safety regulations is a weakness in federal rail transit safety oversight  Despite differences across rail transit systems, there is value in establishing federal rail transit safety regulations, according to stakeholders from all categories of those we interviewed, including a state safety agency, three rail transit operators, a railroad operator, and two industry associations  Some stakeholders identified specific areas that would benefit from federal rail transit regulations  For example, two rail transit agencies called for federal regulations to address operator fatigue  Some of these officials stated that federal rail transit safety regulations could help ensure safety by establishing clear and consistent minimum standards  Officials from a rail transit entity and an industry association stated that voluntary standards are not enough to ensure that transit entities will adopt appropriate safety measures  According to our analysis, a past study, and stakeholders we spoke with, FTA’s ability to develop and implement performance-based regulations is limited by its lack of capacity to collect and analyze rail safety performance data  In 2017, DOT OIG found that data limitations of FTA’s National Transit Database results in limited safety performance criteria in FTA’s National Public Transportation Safety Plan  Further, two rail transit entities as well as a state safety agency we spoke with stated that they face challenges in analyzing data due to either the size of their systems or their capacity  FTA officials told us that they need more data to inform their decisions regarding whether to establish rail transit safety regulations, and also added that a limitation to their ongoing assessment of potential areas for rail transit safety regulation is the concern about public disclosure of safety data provided to FTA and its potential use in private litigation  According to FTA officials, they need more information to do a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of current safety standards and practices  As required by the FAST Act, FTA has entered into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, to conduct a study to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to withhold from federal or state court proceedings any information collected by DOT through its public transportation safety program oversight activities  The National Academies of Sciences is expected to complete this study in 2018  FTA is taking positive steps toward developing safety regulations that may address inconsistent safety practices across rail transit operators  FTA officials stated that the agency is considering issuing rail transit safety regulations and also employs additional tools to compel rail transit entities to adopt safety measures  As noted above, FTA is currently studying whether federal regulations are appropriate for specific areas of rail transit safety  Executive Order 12866 and OMB’s Circular A-4 direct federal agencies to consider performance-based regulations when developing regulations  Further, as the Transportation Research Board recently reported, any decision to use performance-based regulations “must take into account the regulator’s own ability to enforce and motivate compliance (through methods such as auditing and field inspections) as well as the capacity of regulated entities to meet their obligations ” FTA officials noted that they are actively engaged with members of the Transportation Research Board in reviewing and discussing these recent findings related to safety regulations for high-hazards industries  In January 2017, FTA issued its National Public Transportation Safety Plan, which FTA officials noted is one component of their transit safety standard development program  According to FTA officials, the plan identifies a list of issue areas that the agency is currently studying to determine whether national regulations are needed  FTA officials also stated that the plan includes “voluntary standards,” which are intended to put the industry “on notice” that federal safety regulations may be proposed in those areas  FTA officials stated that they view the National Public Transportation Safety Plan as iterative and more easily updated compared with official regulations  Additional tools that FTA officials stated the agency employs in its approach to safety oversight include general directives as well as the requirements associated with FTA grants  Based on our assessment and studies we reviewed, a strength of FRA’s safety oversight program is its risk-based approach to distributing inspection resources, which may serve as an example for FTA and state safety agencies  According to NTSB, FRA’s qualified inspectors are a strength of its oversight program  To help target these inspectors to the areas of highest risk, FRA developed the National Inspection Plan, which includes a quantitative model for allocating inspection resources in a way that tries to minimize railroad accidents  This model utilizes data including: (1) accident and incident data that railroads are required to report, (2) data from FRA inspection activity, and (3) information on railroad activities such as train miles and other data  Based on our assessment of FRA’s model, we believe that it can be an appropriate and useful tool for directing its inspection resources based on risk because it relies on statistical methods commonly used to predict the risk of a violation for regulated entities  While we did not review FRA’s entire modeling process, nor did we validate the results it generates, we do believe that FRA’s approach to using these statistical models as a key part of its inspection program is appropriate  However, a potential limitation of FRA’s inspection program is the flexibility granted to individual inspectors and whether the manner and extent to which inspectors implement this discretion may be inconsistent with the risk-based National Inspection Plan  FRA’s National Inspection Plan provides guidance for inspectors about how much time they should spend inspecting individual railroads  According to FRA officials, FRA inspectors have considerable flexibility to deviate from the National Inspection Plan based on their judgment regarding where to more effectively use their resources  FRA officials stated that situations arise that call for deviations in planned inspections  For example, a particular railroad may experience a serious accident and therefore require more oversight from FRA  According to FRA officials, regional offices make these decisions based on their understanding of emerging issues  Inspectors are expected to know their region and decide which locations to go to, and are in part evaluated based on these decisions  When a region’s record of total inspection time spent on a particular railroad differs from the National Inspection Plan by more than 5 percent, the region’s leadership submits an explanation to FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety  This practice, if not monitored, could allow inspectors to deviate from the data-driven model results in ways that undermine the goal of the National Inspection Plan to deploy FRA’s limited resources efficiently and based on risk  However, FRA officials told us that flexibility for individual inspectors is important, and that FRA is continuously monitoring the model’s performance and making changes as appropriate  Further, OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy note that it is important to ensure “that sufficient flexibility is left to enforcement and inspection officials to adapt their response in proportion to the facts on the ground ” A strength of FTA’s approach to rail transit safety oversight is that it is working to overcome weaknesses in state oversight of rail transit identified in our prior work and stakeholders we spoke with  For example, FTA has noted that in the past some state safety agencies lacked sufficient oversight authorities  To now be certified by FTA, state safety agencies must demonstrate that they have authority to review, approve and oversee the implementation of rail transit operator’s safety plans  Additionally, we have found, and FTA has also noted, that some state safety agencies would benefit from more training and additional staff  To now be certified by FTA, state safety agencies must be capable of directly hiring and developing staff and contract support, as well as have a training plan for certain staff  Though FTA is seeking to implement stronger safety oversight activities, a limitation of its program is that state safety agencies have not received the guidance and support necessary to develop effective inspection programs  FTA does not currently plan to conduct widespread inspections itself and recommends that state safety agencies develop risk-based inspection programs  According to FTA, states have discretion to establish their inspection programs in accordance with their program standards, and are not required to actually conduct inspections as the method of verifying rail transit operators’ compliance with safety rules  However, direct observation, audits, and performance indicator tracking are useful methods for an oversight agency in assessing a regulated entity’s safety culture  Officials we spoke with from selected state safety agencies say that they have received little guidance from FTA on what their risk-based inspection programs should look like  In the materials FTA provided to states, it said that it intends to provide guidance to states on risk-based inspections but did not provide us with a plan or timeline for doing so  Without guidance from FTA, state safety agencies may not develop effective risk-based inspection programs and thus not use their resources efficiently  Effective risk-based inspection programs are particularly important given state safety agencies’ limited resources  We have reported in the past that some state safety agencies lack sufficient resources, including training and staff  Officials from two rail transit operators and all four industry associations we spoke with stated that state safety agencies continue to have limited resources and capacity  Several state safety agencies we spoke with rely on contractors or employees with other responsibilities besides oversight of rail transit to meet their increased oversight responsibilities and achieve certification from FTA  Federal standards for internal control as well as leading practices for regulatory inspections state that agency objectives, including those related to inspections and enforcement, should be clearly communicated  Specifically, federal standards for internal control require that management communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the agency’s objectives  Additionally, the OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy recommends that governments ensure clarity of rules and processes for enforcement and inspections and clearly articulate rights and obligations of officials  According to OECD, the frequency of inspections and the resources employed should be proportional to the level of risk  A strength of FRA’s safety oversight program is that the agency has and utilizes clear enforcement authority, according to NTSB and stakeholders we spoke with  As previously discussed, FRA has several enforcement tools available when inspectors find that railroads are noncompliant with applicable regulations, including civil penalties, individual liability, compliance orders, and emergency orders  According to NTSB, this array of specific enforcement tools helps ensure safety deficiencies are addressed by railroads  FRA officials also told us that the process of adjudicating civil penalties provides a forum for FRA and railroad officials to meet to discuss safety issues  Four rail operators also told us that FRA’s authority to issue civil penalties is necessary to ensure railroads’ compliance with regulations  However, a potential limitation of FRA’s approach to enforcement is that it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of FRA’s civil penalties  FRA has reported that it cannot determine whether observable safety improvements are directly attributable to discrete civil penalties or whether the amount of civil penalties has any effect on safety  We have reported in the past about the challenges of determining the effect of penalties on compliance in tax policy, though we also noted that, despite these challenges, some analyses likely would be useful for better understanding the effect of penalties on compliance  FRA also reported, though, that according to the judgments of its inspectors, issuing civil penalties yields observable improvements in safety practices and compliance with the law  Further, according to FRA, though it does not quantify the impact of civil penalties, FRA monitors railroad responses to its enforcement activity and adjusts its oversight as necessary  More broadly, civil penalties are not meant, by themselves, to ensure railroad safety  Instead, FRA reported that it uses its entire regulatory regime as a whole to try and ensure safety  FRA officials also noted that the agency has additional tools, apart from civil penalties, to compel railroads to adopt safety practices  A strength of FTA’s rail transit safety oversight is that it seeks to improve historically weak state safety agency enforcement authorities, as described in our previous report as well stakeholders we spoke with  FTA requires state safety agencies to adopt enforcement authorities that are sufficient to enable states to compel action from rail transit agencies to address identified deficiencies  FTA has also communicated to states that it is focusing its evaluation of each state’s enforcement authorities in two major areas: ensuring that the state can carry out its primary responsibility for rail transit safety in response to (1) an imminent threat to public safety on the rail transit system and (2) a lack of action or non- compliance from the rail transit operator in carrying out certain safety plans  FTA has provided states with examples of the enforcement authorities and policies state safety agencies could establish to address these specific concerns  Authorities to address imminent safety threats may include the authority to suspend rail transit agencies’ operations, inspect and remove deficient equipment or system infrastructure from service, or issue an order requiring the rail transit agency to correct an unsafe condition prior to placing equipment or infrastructure back into passenger service  FTA has also provided state safety agencies with examples of authorities to address a lack of action or cooperation by the rail transit operator, including the authority to withhold or redirect funds, levy civil or criminal fines or penalties, and a formal citation or ticketing program  Though federal law requires that state safety agencies have enforcement authorities over the safety of the rail transit entities they oversee, a limitation of FTA’s approach is that FTA has not developed a method to evaluate the effectiveness of states’ enforcement practices  Certified state safety agencies will be evaluated for continued compliance with FTA regulations every 3 years  This triennial review process (for rail transit safety) seeks to ensure that states are effectively carrying out their responsibilities  While FTA officials told us that they will evaluate state safety agencies’ enforcement during the triennial reviews, FTA has not developed a process or methodology to evaluate whether state enforcement authorities and practices as a whole are effective  Without a method for determining the effectiveness of state safety agencies’ enforcement, FTA may not have the information needed to identify ineffective safety enforcement  As a result, deficiencies may remain for long periods of time, potentially contributing to safety incidents  Federal standards for internal control maintain that agency managers should perform a range of practices that would facilitate the establishment of a system to monitor the effectiveness of agency activities, which in the context of FTA’s mission includes the effectiveness of its rail transit safety oversight  Agency managers should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks, establish activities to monitor performance measures and indicators, and externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  Internal control standards further stipulate that agency managers should perform monitoring activities regarding their internal control system and evaluate the results  To do so, federal standards for internal control state that agency managers should monitor ongoing operations and effectiveness, evaluate the results of this monitoring, and identify any changes that need to be made to achieve improvement in agency operations  The effectiveness of state safety agency enforcement is especially important because questions have been raised about the efficacy of FTA’s own enforcement mechanisms, including its ability to withhold funds from and assume direct control over safety oversight for a rail transit entity  Rail transit operators and industry association representatives we spoke with stated that FTA’s authority to withhold funding from states is overly punitive, and two stakeholders said the FTA needs more precise tools  Officials from an industry association added that withholding funds can be counterproductive, as most state safety agencies are already underfunded and understaffed  FTA officials pointed to examples in which the agency successfully supported state safety agencies in compelling action from rail transit agencies as evidence that the state safety oversight model, in which FTA backs up state safety agencies, is effective  Additionally, officials from numerous state safety agencies and others questioned whether FTA has the capacity to effectively assume direct safety oversight of rail transit operators  FTA has not assumed direct safety oversight of any rail transit operators outside of WMATA, and FTA officials noted that they intend to continue supporting state safety agencies in their oversight wherever possible  The approaches to rail safety oversight utilized by FRA and FTA each have strengths and limitations  However, FTA’s program is currently in transition as the agency implements new authorities and responsibilities provided in federal law  Though FTA has made progress by evaluating existing rail transit safety standards and providing some guidance to states as part of the certification process, limitations in FTA’s approach may still hinder the success of the state-based rail transit safety oversight program  Given the looming 2019 deadline for state safety oversight programs to achieve FTA certification, FTA can improve its efforts to implement its new rail transit safety oversight program  In particular, without guidance from FTA on how to develop and carry out risk-based inspection programs, state safety agencies may not use limited resources efficiently, risking that important safety issues will go undetected  Further, without a method for how it will monitor the effectiveness of states safety agencies’ enforcement, FTA will lack the information needed to identify ineffective state enforcement, which risks allowing safety deficiencies to remain for long periods of time  By providing this additional guidance and direction to the state safety agencies, FTA would help ensure that states are able to effectively identify and resolve rail transit safety issues  We are making the following two recommendations to FTA: The Office of Transit Safety and Oversight should create a plan, with a timeline, for developing guidance for state safety agencies about how to develop and implement a risk-based inspection program  (Recommendation 1) The Office of Transit Safety and Oversight should develop and communicate a method for how it will monitor the effectiveness of the enforcement authorities and practices of state safety agencies  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft copy of this report to DOT, NTSB, and WMATA for review and comment  In written comments, reproduced in appendix I, DOT agreed with both our recommendations  DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In e-mails, NTSB and WMATA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  NTSB noted that we do not discuss the role of system safety initiatives, such as safety management systems, in the FRA and FTA rail safety oversight programs  We agree with NTSB that system safety concepts are increasingly influencing the FRA and FTA approaches to rail safety oversight but, as NTSB also noted, both FRA and FTA lack finalized regulations codifying their approaches to system safety initiatives  Because the extent of rail entities’ implementation of these initiatives varies and is not complete we did not include an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those initiatives in our scope  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 Secretary of Transportation, Chairman of NTSB, General Manager of WMATA, and the 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) 512-2834 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  Individuals who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen (Assistant Director); Kyle Browning (Analyst in Charge); Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Serena Lo; Sean Miskell; and Josh Ormond made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the President announced the ERI, to reassure allies in Europe of U.S. commitment to their security. This initiative has been funded using OCO appropriations, which Congress provides in addition to DOD's base budget appropriations. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for GAO to review matters related to ERI. In this report, we (1) describe changes in ERI's objectives, funding under ERI, and DOD's posture in Europe since 2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD's planning processes for posture initiatives funded under ERI prioritize those initiatives, estimate their long-term costs, and communicate their estimated costs to Congress. GAO analyzed DOD strategy documentation, budget and cost analysis guidance, budget justification materials, and cost and obligations data. GAO also interviewed knowledgeable officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. European Command, the military services, and the State Department. Since 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded the European Reassurance Initiative's (ERI) objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to European posture. DOD expanded ERI's objectives from the short-term reassurance of allies and partners to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail. With respect to funding, DOD will have requested approximately $4.5 billion for ERI's posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017 (about $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2017 alone), and in July 2016 EUCOM identified funding needs for future posture initiatives. The expansion of ERI's objectives has contributed to DOD's enhancing its posture in Europe. Specifically, DOD has increased the size and duration of Army combat unit deployments, planned to preposition Army equipment in Eastern Europe, added new enduring locations (e.g., locations that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S. security interests for the foreseeable future), improved infrastructure, and negotiated new agreements with European nations. As of April 2017, DOD was considering further force enhancements under ERI as part of the department's ERI budget request. DOD also was reviewing whether new enduring locations to support ERI were needed and was considering other improvements to existing infrastructure. DOD's process for planning ERI has not established priorities among posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those in its base budget, nor estimated long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, nor communicated future costs to Congress. ERI is being planned using a separate process from DOD's established processes and is funded from DOD's overseas contingency operations (OCO) appropriations. GAO found several weaknesses: Lack of prioritization : DOD establishes priorities among ERI posture initiatives but has not evaluated them against base budget initiatives using its posture management process. As a result, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of ERI initiatives and may be investing in projects that it will not continue should OCO funding become unavailable. Lack of sustainment costs : EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term costs to sustain equipment and construction funded under ERI. Based on DOD's approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, GAO determined that these costs could be substantial. DOD officials said that GAO correctly applied DOD's approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment. In the absence of comprehensive estimates, DOD has been limited in its ability to assess affordability and plan for future costs. Not communicating future costs : DOD limits Congress's visibility into the resources needed to implement ERI and achieve its objectives because it does not include future costs in its ERI budget request. This is a public version of a classified report issued in August 2017. Information on specific posture planning, guidance, and budget estimates that DOD deemed to be classified have been omitted from this report. GAO recommends that DOD prioritize ERI posture initiatives against initiatives in its base budget, develop cost estimates for sustaining initiatives, and communicate future costs to Congress. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations are warranted.