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



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



Report 2: Federal agencies’ personal property may include commonly used items, such as computers, office equipment, and furniture, and more specialized property reflective of their mission, such as scientific devices, fire control equipment, heavy machinery, precious metals, generators, and chemicals  Some items require special handling, such as hazardous materials, animals, and firearms  See figure 1 for examples of federal personal property  Federal agencies manage personal property while they are using it  Specifically, executive agencies are required by law to: maintain adequate inventory controls and accountability systems for property under their control; continually survey property under their control to identify excess; promptly report excess property to GSA and dispose of it in accordance with GSA regulations; and use existing agency property or obtain excess property from other federal agencies before purchasing new property  GSA assists agencies when they no longer need personal property and has established a government-wide personal-property disposal process in federal regulation  The process generally begins when an agency declares a personal property item as “excess”—that is, the agency determines it no longer needs the item to carry out its mission  Agencies are to make this determination only after ensuring the property is not needed elsewhere within the agency  Once property is declared excess, there are four potential property disposal methods: transfer to another federal agency or certain non-federal entities, donation, sale, and abandonment or destruction  Federal agencies and some non-federal entities have the priority to acquire excess property, through transfer  If none of these eligible entities have requested the property for transfer after 21 days, the property becomes “surplus”—that is, GSA determines that federal agencies no longer need the item to carry out their missions  Surplus property may be donated to eligible entities through a State Agency for Surplus Property, representing the state of the prospective donee  Property not donated within 5 days after the close of the 21-day screening period may be sold to the general public and, finally, unsold property may be abandoned or destroyed  See appendix II for an expanded description of the personal property disposal process  OMB is responsible for establishing government-wide management policies and requirements and provides guidance to agencies to implement them  OMB has issued guidance for specific types of personal property, such as for government aircraft and information technology systems  OMB also implemented the Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint initiatives, starting in 2012, to reduce the amount of domestic office and warehouse space needed by the federal government, in part, through consolidations and improved space utilization  As a result, federal agencies have reported achieving space reductions, and they have goals for additional reductions in the future  Although these reductions are a relatively small part of the federal government’s overall footprint, according to OMB, through this and other efforts agencies collectively reduced their office and warehouse space by about 25 million square feet from fiscal years 2012 through 20156  As federal agencies continue to reduce office and warehouse space, they will also likely have to manage or dispose of personal property, such as office furniture or stored property, from these spaces  Each of the five selected agencies we reviewed have policies and processes for carrying out their responsibilities to maintain adequate accountability systems and inventory controls for property under their control: All five agencies have policies for regularly inventorying their personal property to physically locate and verify property tracked in their asset management systems  EPA, GSA OAS, and IRS policies require physical inventories of personal property once a year, while Forest Service’s policy requires inventories every other fiscal year and a 10 percent sample inventory in the alternate years  HUD policies require inventories every 2 years at its headquarters, but according to HUD officials, field locations conduct inventories annually  All of the agencies also have an electronic asset-management system for maintaining information on personal property  Although each agency has its own system, and the type of information maintained varied by agency or type of property, generally each system generates a record for each property item that provides descriptive information about the item, such as manufacturer name, model number, serial number or other identifier, acquisition cost, condition, and current location  We found that the five agencies use these policies and processes to track and inventory certain property determined by each agency to be “accountable ” Accountable property is nonexpendable personal property with an expected useful life of 2 years or longer that an agency determines should be tracked in its property records, based on an item’s acquisition cost and sensitivity  Each agency determines its own appropriate acquisition cost threshold: four of the agencies—EPA, Forest Service, HUD, and IRS—consider property with an original acquisition cost of $5,000 or greater to be accountable; GSA OAS’s accountable threshold is $10,000 or greater  In addition, certain sensitive property— such as digital cameras, laptop computers with hard drives, and firearms—is considered accountable regardless of acquisition cost because it could be easily stolen or can store data or personal information  Table 1 provides a snapshot of accountable personal property items— including the reported original acquisition cost, amount, and examples— reported from 4 of the selected agencies’ asset management systems in 2017  The agencies in our review generally did not track in their asset management systems or formally inventory their remaining—or “non- accountable”—personal property that did not meet their definition of accountable property  According to agency officials we interviewed, they do not track or inventory low value items because: (1) the cost and manpower required to do so are too high; (2) certain property, such as office furniture, is less susceptible to theft; or (3) agencies believe they are not required by law to inventory low value items  While agencies are required to have systems of accounting and internal controls that provide effective control over, and accountability for, their assets, they generally have latitude in how they implement these procedures, including which property to track and inventory  While the five selected agencies had policies and processes for their property accountability and inventory control responsibilities, they largely did not have policies and processes for carrying out their responsibilities, as established in law, to continually survey property under their control to identify excess  According to officials at each of the selected agencies, the responsibility for identifying unneeded property generally lies with that agency’s property custodians—designated officials who are assigned responsibility for the property—or the agency program or individual using the property  Four of the five selected agencies’ policies do not require property custodians or other property users to assess property for continued need  Furthermore, these four agencies’ policies did not have specific criteria for the property custodian or user to assess property for continued need  Only IRS’s personal-property management policy specifies that the property custodian is responsible for identifying excess property and provides criteria to be applied in doing so, such as whether property is still needed in its location and the feasibility of transferring it to other locations, taking into account the property’s condition and transportation charges  An official at one of the selected agencies identified several specific criteria that should be used to assess property for continued need, including the item’s serviceability, whether it poses a safety hazard, and the feasibility of relocating it  However, the official acknowledged that these or any other criteria are not part of the agency’s formal policy  The personal property policy of an agency not included in our review— NASA—includes requirements and criteria to review NASA property for continued need in multiple ways  For example, it requires a high-level NASA official to conduct a walk-through inspection annually to identify idle or underused equipment that is no longer needed and report it as excess  It also requires, as part of an annual property inventory, that property that appears to be excess, worn out, or in obvious need of repair be noted as such and that guidance on identifying unneeded property be provided to personnel involved in conducting the inventories as well as employees assigned to use the property  In addition to not having policies on identifying and assessing property for continued need, agencies we reviewed also did not have a systematic process for doing so  Instead, when describing situations in which they declared property as excess, officials said they typically did so as a result of a “triggering event ” The types of triggering events the officials cited include an office move or consolidation or a lifecycle replacement of laptops  For example, officials from field locations of three of these agencies reported declaring most of their existing furniture as excess as the result of an office relocation or renovation  Agency officials said they were unable to use their existing furniture and had to declare it excess because it did not conform to new space utilization standards  At another agency, officials were disposing of a large number of laptop computers that had been declared excess because they had been replaced by new computers  Officials at two agencies said an assessment of property for continued need is an assumed practice that is part of the inventory for accountable property  However, an official from one of these agencies acknowledged that assessing need is not addressed in the written instructions provided to those conducting the inventory  Officials from two other agencies acknowledged that they continue to retain unneeded property that should be declared excess in storage on-site but had not pursued disposal due to other competing responsibilities with higher priorities  Proactively assessing personal property for continued need instead of responding to a triggering event can help agencies achieve both effective and efficient operations by ensuring that only needed property is retained and unneeded property is identified and declared excess  Federal internal control standards require that agencies design and maintain internal control activities—such as policies and procedures—to identify risks arising from mission and mission-support operations, and to provide reasonable assurance that agencies are operating in an efficient manner that minimizes the waste of resources  Such a system also provides reasonable assurance that agency property is safeguarded against waste, loss, or unauthorized use  OMB staff and GSA officials agreed that assessing all types of property—accountable and non-accountable—for continued need is important and called-for by internal control standards  Because the agencies we reviewed did not have systematic processes for assessing the continued need for personal property, they may not be aware of potential risks of maintaining property that may no longer be needed for operational purposes  Furthermore, previous work others have performed has shown that inaction on unneeded or idle property can limit efficient use of the government’s personal property, unnecessarily use an agency’s resources, or miss opportunities for potential cost savings, for example: The Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General found that the U S  Coast Guard could not ensure that personal property was efficiently reutilized or properly disposed of to prevent unauthorized use or theft because the Coast Guard did not have adequate policies, procedures, and processes to identify and screen, reutilize, and dispose of excess personal property properly, including criteria for identifying such property  The EPA’s Inspector General estimated EPA could save $8 9 million in reduced warehouse costs through improved management of stored personal property  GSA personal property asset management studies conducted in 2003 and 2005 found, among other things, that personal property is not being used to its fullest extent in some agencies and that no government-wide usage assessment or standard exists to detect whether property is no longer needed and can be reported as excess  Without a triggering event, agencies may not be seeking out or identifying property that is no longer needed and declaring it excess as often as they should  Such unneeded property may be put to better use elsewhere within the agency or the federal government, or agencies may purchase or lease new property instead of using another agency’s property that is unneeded but not reported as excess  In addition, agencies may be missing opportunities to realize cost savings by identifying and disposing of unneeded property, such as property stored in warehouses, to reduce or make better use of that space  While the requirements for agencies to continually survey property under their control to identify excess is established in law, according to GSA officials, there are no government-wide regulations on managing personal property or fulfilling this specific requirement  According to GSA OGP officials, GSA does not have the authority to promulgate regulations or issue formal guidance on personal property that is in use by executive agencies  Furthermore, according to the officials, GSA is only authorized by law to prescribe regulations on excess and surplus personal property  OMB staff stated that they could issue a notification, such as a controller alert to agencies’ chief financial officers, to reinforce the statutory requirement that agencies conduct assessments of personal property for continued need  OMB periodically issues such alerts to highlight emerging financial management issues for agencies and also issues guidance to agencies through bulletins, circulars, and memorandums  By issuing a controller alert or other guidance, OMB can help ensure that agencies are proactively taking steps to evaluate their property for continued need, including developing appropriate policies for doing so, and can thereby improve efforts to promote maximum use of excess personal property  Officials from the five agencies we reviewed reported that they followed GSA’s automated process to dispose of property once they had made the determination it was no longer needed to support their agency’s mission  As previously described, GSA regulations on disposing of property establish a specific process for all executive agencies to follow, and GSA has also issued guidance to help agencies dispose of property under this process  In particular, once an agency has determined that the property it has is no longer needed within the agency, the agency is required to promptly report the property to GSA as excess, typically by entering information about it into GSAXcess, GSA’s web-based system for facilitating personal property disposal  This method requires agency employees to manually enter information using data entry screens that include help screens and error messages  GSA encourages agencies to provide a complete description of the property and to include multiple photographs of it  Officials from the five agencies we reviewed reported no significant difficulties with entering information into GSAXcess; collectively, these agencies reported over 37,000 items as excess property from fiscal year 2012 through 2016  Figure 2 indicates the number of items each selected agency reported to GSA as excess during that period  Once information entry is completed, the disposal process begins  If the property is not disposed of during one stage, it advances to the next stage  The disposal process is shown in figure 3  Agency officials we interviewed told us that responsibility for disposing of property is decentralized and typically occurs at the property’s location, whether at an agency headquarters, regional office, or lower level  Because of the large federal government presence in the Washington, D C , area, agency offices in that area may have access to resources to facilitate the disposal process that are unavailable elsewhere, such as transferring excess property to certain entities that complete some or all aspects of the disposal process for a fee  Two such entities are GSA’s Personal Property Center in Springfield, Virginia, which takes full accountability and control of an agency’s excess property for a fee and handles all the details of the disposal process, and USDA’s Centralized Excess Property Operation in Beltsville, Maryland  According to USDA’s Agriculture Property Management Regulations, property not needed by USDA or its bureau offices in the Washington, D C , area must be transferred to this office for final disposal actions  It also provides these same services to some non-USDA agencies  Agencies also use GSAXcess to search for and select available excess property  Agency officials told us that the system also sends disposition instructions to the property-holding agency, when the property is to be transferred to other federal agencies, donated, or sold and that the agencies follow these instructions  For example, when an agency requests an excess item in GSAXcess and GSA approves the request, the system notifies the requesting agency and the property-holding agency and provides contact information to arrange to complete the transaction  None of the selected agency officials reported difficulties completing a transfer or donation transaction  For property not transferred, donated, or sold, GSA notifies the agency that the property has no commercial value and can be abandoned or destroyed  All of our selected agencies reported trying to recycle such property  Selected agency officials told us they disposed of property from space reduction efforts, such as Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint, the same way as other personal property—using GSA’s disposal process  To meet space reduction goals, selected agencies are undertaking projects at dozens of locations  Projects have primarily involved leased space for offices and warehouses and have included office moves, consolidations, and closures  As federal agencies carry out these space reduction projects, they must also address any personal property in the project spaces  Selected agencies reported several factors that affected their decisions about this property, which for three of the agencies was primarily office furniture  Four agencies reported needing less space than they previously occupied because of changes in agency missions or staffing levels  Furthermore, officials from GSA OAS and IRS noted that workplace trends, including teleworking and decreased staffing, reduced the space needed  Finally, agencies also reported that the office furniture itself was mostly unsuitable because it was old and because it could not be configured for use in more efficient office space designs  As a result, some selected agency locations that completed an office move or renovation project reported that most of their existing furniture was not needed in their new space  For example, in its Reduce the Footprint plan for fiscal years 2017 through 2021, HUD noted that many of its locations were designed and furnished when it had a much larger staffing level and reported that in 2016, its usable square feet per employee was 356  Subsequently, HUD revised its space design standards, requiring future office spaces to adhere to a utilization rate of 175 square feet or less  At the HUD project we visited, an official told us the furniture in use before the project was old and was generally too large to be used to achieve space design standards  In 2017, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reduced its Denver regional office space by 30 percent  HUD’s lease was expiring and it needed less space because it had fewer employees in the office, in part due to increased telework  Adhering to new space utilization standards in its office and furniture design further reduced HUD’s overall required space  An example of a new workstation is shown above  Before the project, the agency occupied about five floors of a commercial building  HUD renovated in place, one floor at a time, and replaced its existing office furniture with new  Personal property at this office included primarily office furniture, such as desks and 25-year old modular systems, and equipment, such as telephones  As each floor was completed and employees moved to new workstations, the property official on-site disposed of their old furniture and workstations by entering its information in GSAXcess  The official reported selling some of the excess furniture after completing the first floor but recycled or discarded excess furniture in subsequent rounds  In some cases, agencies did not dispose of all the personal property after a space reduction project but instead were able to retain it for other uses within the agency  For example, IRS officials reported closing an office in Englewood, Colorado, and transferred its furniture to Ogden, Utah, for storage for an upcoming project  GSA OAS officials in Denver said that after a space reduction project in which GSA decreased the size of its regional office, it retained the unneeded furniture and office space for temporary use by other agencies  For property that was declared excess following a space reduction project, agencies reported transferring, donating, and selling property to dispose of it, using GSA’s process  For example, officials in GSA OAS, Forest Service, and IRS locations told us they transferred some excess property to other federal agencies  The Forest Service in Denver transferred some modular office furniture to the Bureau of Land Management and the U S
Report 2: S  Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2018  Table 4 provides information from the same report about states' contributions to the costs of maintaining and operating voting equipment  As GAO uses the terms in the survey, operation costs "include things such as poll worker labor to set up equipment, postage for mailing absentee or vote-by-mail ballots, paper and printing supplies for paper ballots or voter-verified paper trails, and electricity to operate equipment during elections " Maintenance costs "include things such as labor to conduct maintenance between elections of any equipment hardware and software as well as any required parts " Some states cover or contribute to the costs of training local election officials, and some share election-specific costs, such as printing ballots and transporting voting equipment  Box 3 uses five examples of cost-sharing arrangements for election-specific costs of federal elections to illustrate the range of approaches states have taken to such arrangements  The structures of the state and local systems that conduct federal elections vary both between and within states  Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the election system; relationship between local election officials and the state; and population size and density of the jurisdiction served by the system  This section describes these structural variations  The state and local election systems that conduct federal elections may be led by an individual, such as the state secretary of state or a town or county clerk; a group, such as a state elections commission or a county board of elections; or a combination of individuals or groups, such as a state secretary of state and state board of elections, or a city clerk and city registrar of voters  Election system leadership may be chosen by voters or appointed by an authority such as the governor or state legislature  The selection method—and the leaders themselves—may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan  Federal law requires states to designate a chief election official to carry out certain tasks  Table 5 lists the titles of chief state election officials, as reported to CRS by the EAC, and the methods of selecting them, as listed by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and the National Association of State Legislatures (NCSL)  The leadership types and selection methods of local election systems may vary within a state  Box 4 uses examples from Florida and Wisconsin to illustrate such variations  It describes the different causes of variation in the two states and a recent change in Florida to a more uniform selection process  The leadership structures of both state and local systems can also change over time  Box 5 uses the two states from Box 4 to illustrate the types of changes states might make, how they might make them, and how frequently they might make them  It describes one change that was approved by voters as a ballot measure and a number of others that were enacted legislatively  Another way in which the structures of election systems can vary is in the relationship between local election officials and the state  Some local election officials operate largely independently, whereas others rely on state officials or resources for some, most, or all basic functions  For example, as noted in " Funding ," states may provide some or all of the training for local election officials  As described in more detail in " Jurisdiction Size and Density ," local election officials who serve smaller or more rural jurisdictions may also depend on their states to provide specialized expertise, such as legal or technical know-how  States also have varying types and degrees of influence over local election officials  Choices about other structural features, such as the method used to select the leadership of local election systems, can shape this aspect of the state-local relationship  For example, in some states, state officials appoint and can remove local election officials  State officials in other states may have other options for influencing local officials  For example, state officials may have the power to initiate legal action against local officials, to provide or withhold funding for local election administration, or to certify and decertify voting systems  However, they tend to have less control over how local officials perform their election administration duties than state officials with appointment and removal authority  As described in more detail in " Compliance with Federal Requirements ," this dynamic may be especially pronounced for local officials who are popularly elected  Such officials are accountable primarily to voters rather than to the state  Other structural variations between election systems derive from differences in the population size and density of the jurisdictions they serve  Some election jurisdictions reported serving fewer than 100 eligible registered voters in the 2016 election, for example, whereas Los Angeles County reported serving 6 8 million  The eligible registered voters in that county alone reportedly outnumbered the eligible registrants in each of 40 other states  Election jurisdictions also differ in population density  For example, Los Angeles County is an urban center, and many small jurisdictions are rural  Jurisdictions with different population sizes and densities have different election administration advantages and face different administrative challenges  For example, voter registration list maintenance is typically more straightforward in small jurisdictions because their lists are shorter and election officials are more likely to know registrants personally  Meanwhile, large jurisdictions tend to have larger tax bases and more resources  Those differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in the internal structures of the election systems that serve them  One example of such a structural difference is the size and specialization of the system's staff  Larger jurisdictions, which typically have more personnel, may have much of the specialized expertise they need in-house  Smaller jurisdictions, which may have only one part-time employee dedicated to election administration, are more likely to rely on outside expertise  For example, according to law professors Steven F  Huefner, Daniel P  Tokaji, and Edward B  Foley, smaller jurisdictions in Illinois have looked to state attorneys for election law expertise and to voting equipment vendors for technical support  Another type of difference related to jurisdiction size and density is variation in the allocation of system resources  A study prepared for the U S  Election Assistance Commission in 2013 found that election officials in rural jurisdictions were more likely than their urban counterparts to use paid print advertising for voter outreach  Election officials in urban jurisdictions were more likely to use websites and social media  Small jurisdictions may also allocate a larger share of their resources to meeting state and federal requirements than larger jurisdictions because there are often fixed start-up costs to required changes, and smaller jurisdictions may be less equipped to capitalize on economies of scale  For example, political scientists Heather M  Creek and Kimberly A  Karnes report, "There is a minimum cost to the acquisition and maintenance of voting technology that applies whether the district is purchasing 5 or 500 machines " The duties and structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration laws  Perhaps as a result, Congress has specified how states and localities should distribute certain election administration duties and structure certain elements of their election systems  Changes to the duties and structures of state and local election systems have sometimes also been side effects of other federal activity on election administration  This section provides examples of ways in which the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration law  These examples include federal efforts to affect the administration of elections through (1) requirements, (2) funding, and (3) information sharing  Congress can use requirements to regulate how states and localities administer certain aspects of federal elections  How well such requirements serve their intended purposes depends in part on how closely states and localities comply with them  How closely states and localities comply with federal requirements may, in turn, be affected by the duties and structures of the state and local election systems that implement them  For example, UOCAVA assigns responsibility for complying with some of its requirements to the states (52 U S C  §20302), but the tasks required for compliance are often handled by local officials  One scholar, law professor Justin Weinstein-Tull, indicates that this means that the officials who are held liable for compliance with UOCAVA requirements may differ from the officials who take or fail to take the actions needed to comply  Box 6 provides an illustration of this phenomenon as reported by state officials in Alabama  The federal government can provide funding for state and local election administration, which may be conditional on the adoption of certain election administration policies or practices  How well such funding serves its intended purposes may depend in part on how timely it is and how well-tailored it is to its objectives  Duties and structures of state and local election systems may affect how quickly federal funding is claimed and used and how well the uses to which it is put serve federal objectives  For example, HAVA has authorized payments to states to meet its requirements (52 U S C  §21007)  It has directed those payments to be disbursed to states (52 U S C  §21001(a)) and charged chief state election officials with overseeing decisions about how to spend them (52 U S C  §21005(a))  State election officials run federal elections in some states, but those states are the exception  As noted in " Implementation " and " Funding ," most states assign election administration implementation and funding duties to local officials  That means that the officials who receive HAVA funding and are charged with overseeing decisions about how to use it often differ from the officials who conduct and pay for the activities and resources it is intended to fund  That has had at least two reported consequences  First, in some cases, it has reportedly delayed access to or use of some HAVA funds  Directing HAVA funding to states introduces opportunities for state-level delays, such as decisions by state officials to wait to claim the funds or requirements in state law to obtain approval to do so  Second, some local officials have stated the view that their states' shares of HAVA funding were not put to what they considered the areas of greatest need  Box 7 provides examples of such consequences as described by state and local officials in Nevada, Minnesota, and Virginia  Congress can require or facilitate information sharing with states and localities by federal agencies  As with funding, the effectiveness of federal information sharing may depend in part on how timely it is  How quickly federal agencies share information with the appropriate state and local officials may be affected by the distribution of election administration duties at the state and federal levels  Box 8 provides an example of such an effect reported by NASS  Past federal action has resulted in both intentional and unintentional changes to state and local election systems  Some federal laws include provisions that are specifically designed to establish certain responsibilities for election administration at the state level  For example, the NVRA requires states to designate chief state election officials to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA charges chief state election officials with implementing a statewide voter registration system (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A))  Federal regulation has reportedly also had the side effect of shifting the distribution of other election administration duties  For example, the agency-based registration requirements in the NVRA divide voter registration responsibilities between traditional election offices and offices that had not historically been involved in election administration, such as motor vehicle and public assistance agencies (52 U S C  §20504; 52 U S C  §20506)  According to Hale, Montjoy, and Brown, "the need to pass implementing legislation and the complexity of legal and technical requirements" in federal laws such as HAVA and the NVRA has also "led many states to grant new or additional rule-making power" to their chief state election officials  Congress has considered legislation—some of which has been enacted and some of which has not—that would change election rules or the state and local systems that implement them  The interactions between the duties and structures of state and local election systems and past federal actions suggest some considerations that may be relevant to future congressional consideration of proposals that would affect the administration of federal elections  The following questions may be of interest to Members as they consider making changes to election administration or maintaining current rules and structures: How would any proposed change interact with the duties and structures of state and local election systems? Would the duties and structures of state and local election systems make a proposed change difficult to implement? Would the design of a proposed change need to be adjusted to accommodate variations between or within states? Which of the policy tools available to Congress is best suited to achieving the purpose of a proposed change? For example, would it be more effective to advance a proposed change with a federal requirement, or incentivize it via federal funding? How might the nature of the state and local system inform a proposed change? For example, if it is a federal requirement, who is charged with compliance; who is responsible for the tasks required for compliance; and what is the relationship between the two? If it is federal funding, to whom should it be distributed, and who should be involved in making decisions about how to use it? Would a proposed change have the effect, either intentionally or unintentionally, of altering the duties or structures of state or local election systems? If so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such changes? Are there complications with a proposed change that are not specifically related to election administration? For example, could there be federalism-related issues with intervening in the relationships between states and their political subdivisions? 

ground_truth: BOP is the largest employer within DOJ and is responsible for the care and custody of an inmate population of about 186,000. BOP has faced challenges retaining staff at correctional facilities, although it has used retention incentives, along with other human capital flexibilities. GAO was asked to review BOP's use of retention incentives. This report addresses: (1) how BOP used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) internal controls BOP has in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives. GAO obtained employee-level retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ's Justice Management Division for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. GAO also reviewed agency documentation, such as policy statements and 40 randomly selected retention incentive application packet case files from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. GAO also interviewed officials from BOP's Central Office and four correctional facilities that use retention incentives, selected to reflect variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP regions, and BOP institution security levels. From fiscal years 2012 to 2016, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) total retention incentive expenditures generally increased from $10.7 to $14.0 million and the number of employees receiving retention incentives increased from 2,024 to 2,460. During those five years, BOP spent more than 97 percent of its total retention incentive expenditures on employees at four BOP institutions in California and for medical professionals nationwide. Further, total retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased by an average of 21 percent per year (see figure). According to BOP officials, BOP uses retention incentives, for example, to supplement BOP's medical professionals' salaries which are generally lower than private sector salaries. BOP has a variety of internal controls in place throughout the retention incentive process that help ensure retention incentive applications and approvals meet requirements. For example, each application goes through multiple levels of review to verify its accuracy and completeness. BOP takes steps to determine workforce needs and how to fill those needs, but has not strategically planned for and evaluated its use of retention incentives. According to BOP, planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly meetings, but discussions about these incentives respond to short-term staffing situations rather than proactively addressing future staffing needs. Including human capital goals and strategies in BOP's human capital plan would create a roadmap so the agency could move from being reactive to its current workforce needs to being strategic in trying to achieve its long-term workforce goals. Additionally BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives in retaining staff. As a result, BOP does not know whether retention incentives have contributed to employees' retention in relation to other incentives used by BOP. Consistent with key principles for strategic human capital planning, planning for and evaluating the use of retention incentives could help BOP better determine if these incentives are an efficient and effective means by which to retain staff. GAO recommends that BOP (1) include human capital goals and how retention incentives will be used to achieve these goals in its human capital plan; and (2) evaluate the use of retention incentives. BOP concurred with GAO's recommendations.

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



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

Report 1: Justice Management Division (JMD) JMD provides the Federal Bureau of Prisons senior management with guidance as it relates to Department of Justice (DOJ) policy for all matters pertaining to organization, management, and administration, including the use of human capital flexibilities such as retention incentives  BOP is responsible for incarcerating all federal offenders sentenced to prison  To carry out its mission, BOP, under the oversight of DOJ’s JMD, manages the human resource operations of its institutions, including the use of retention incentives  BOP administers, monitors, and oversees retention incentives through its Central Office, regional offices, and institutions  Central Office  The Central Office serves as BOP’s headquarters and provides oversight of BOP operations and program areas  Within the Central Office is BOP’s Human Resource Management Division (HRMD) which is responsible for developing, implementing and administering human resource policies and programs, including the use of retention incentives that meet OPM and DOJ requirements  In addition, the Central Office’s Program Review Division (PRD) is responsible for assessing BOP programs, including human resources, to ensure that they are managed and operated effectively  Regional offices  BOP has six regional offices that cover the Mid- Atlantic, North Central, Northeast, South Central, Southeast, and Western regions of the United States  These offices, each led by a regional director, oversee the operations of the 122 federal institutions within their respective geographic regions of the country  According to BOP officials, regional office staff also provide local level oversight of institutions’ human capital programs, such as retention incentives, among other things  Institutions  BOP institutions are managed by a warden and other officials, including an executive assistant and associate warden who generally provide overall direction and, in part, administer the institution’s human capital policies, including policies on retention incentives  Correctional services staff represent the largest segment of each institution’s workforce and are responsible for the correctional treatment, custody, and supervision of inmates  Non-correctional services staff include, among others, those employees assigned to non-correctional services management, facility operations, and the health services unit  Workers in health services and psychology services are responsible for providing inmates with medical, dental, and mental health services and include, for example, dentists, pharmacists, physicians, nurses, psychologists, and drug treatment specialists  The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 first authorized OPM to allow federal agencies to give incentives, including retention incentives, to employees  The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 provided federal agencies increased flexibilities regarding these incentives  For example, individual retention incentives that were capped at 25 percent of an employee’s basic pay rate could be increased up to 50 percent in cases of critical agency need with OPM’s approval  Generally, under OPM regulations, an agency is authorized to pay a retention incentive to employees  This happens when the agency determines that the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special need of the agency for the employee’s services makes it essential to retain the employee and that the employee would be likely to leave federal service in the absence of an incentive  In addition, OPM requires agencies to develop plans for using retention incentives outlining, in part, the required documentation for justifying the retention incentive and any criteria for determining the amount of incentive and the length of the service period  Generally, agencies must require that employees sign a written service agreement that outlines the terms of the service such as the employee’s agreement to remain a certain length of time with the agency  Additionally, according to OPM regulations, to qualify for a retention incentive, each employee must have a performance rating of at least “fully successful” or an agency’s equivalent performance rating  BOP funds the majority of its retention incentives through its Salaries and Expenses appropriation account which represented almost 93 percent of BOP’s budget in FY 2016  According to BOP officials, BOP’s Central Office allocates funding from the Salaries and Expenses account to the regional offices  These regional offices then determine how to allocate their budget among various salary and expense activities, including retention incentives  HRMD delegates retention incentive determinations to each institution  In accordance with OPM requirements and BOP’s October 2016 Program Statement on Compensation, the wardens make retention incentive requests based on documented evidence that the employee possesses unusually high or unique qualifications or meets a special need of the agency and has a performance rating of at least “successful or its equivalent ” These incentives are calculated as a percentage of the employee’s basic pay and are disbursed in installments to the employee each pay period  In addition to retention incentives, BOP has authority to provide other compensation-based human capital flexibilities to employees, in certain circumstances  The following summarizes some of the compensation- based human capital flexibilities that BOP uses in addition to retention incentives, to retain and recruit staff: Recruitment and relocation incentives  BOP pays recruitment incentives to new hires and relocation incentives to current employees who elect to move to a different geographic area, when a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive  Student loan repayments  Using this authority, BOP may repay federally-insured student loans to attract job candidates or retain current employees  Special salary rates  With OPM approval, BOP may establish higher rates of pay for an occupation or group of occupations nationwide or in a local area when it finds the government’s recruitment or retention efforts are, or would likely become, significantly handicapped without those higher rates  Physicians and dental comparability allowances  Comparability allowances may be paid to certain eligible physicians or dental professionals who enter into service agreements  These allowances are paid only to categories of physicians and dentists for which the agency is experiencing recruitment and retention problems and are fixed at the minimum amounts necessary to deal with such problems  BOP retention incentive expenditures generally increased from $10 7 million in fiscal year 2012 to $14 0 million in fiscal year 2016  Additionally, as illustrated in table 1, the number of employees who received retention incentives increased each year from 2,024 employees in fiscal year 2012 to 2,460 employees in fiscal year 2016  In general, BOP employees who received retention incentives received the incentive for more than one year  For example, from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, a total of 3,382 BOP employees received retention incentive payments  Of those, 82 percent (2,766 of 3,382) received retention incentive payments for at least 2 years and 39 percent received retention incentives all 5 years, as shown in figure 1  From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, BOP spent more than 97 percent of its total retention incentive expenditures on employees at four California institutions and for medical professionals nationwide  BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures for the four California institutions and medical professionals nationwide in fiscal year 2016 are provided in figure 2  Four California Institutions  The California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Victorville—constituted the largest portion of BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures, and the level of their expenditures remained relatively steady from fiscal year 2012 through 2016  BOP provides group retention incentives for staff at the General Schedule (GS) grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System at three institutions—USP Atwater, FCI Herlong, and FCC Victorville  BOP also provides individual retention incentives to its employees at GS grades level 12 and below and in the Federal Wage System at FCI Mendota  As shown in figure 3, our analysis of BOP data found that from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, these four California institutions had the largest percentage of retention incentive expenditures across institutions as well as the largest percentage of employees who received retention incentives  Additionally, the four California institutions’ retention incentive expenditures remained relatively steady—around $8 1 to $8 2 million during the 5-year period—even though the overall number of employees who received the incentives generally increased  BOP officials told us that these California institutions’ retention incentive expenditures remained relatively steady in spite of an overall increase in the number of employees receiving incentives, in part, because in fiscal year 2013 BOP reduced the retention incentive rate—the percentage of an employee’s basic pay that determines the employee’s retention incentive— by 3 percent at the four California institutions  BOP officials reported using retention incentives primarily at these four institutions to supplement correctional officers’ salaries and compensate for the gap between BOP’s and other institutions’ salaries  Specifically, officials told us that these four California institutions were consistently understaffed as a result of their lower salaries in comparison to salaries offered at California state and local prisons and at other BOP institutions in California metropolitan areas  The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary for correctional officers in California in 2016 was $70,020  For the same year, the annual average salary for BOP correctional officers at these four institutions was $50,859  To bring these four California institutions’ salaries in line with those offered by state, local, and other BOP institutions in California metropolitan areas, BOP officials told us that they first use recruitment incentives to attract and hire staff and then provide retention incentives to employees with a performance rating of at least “successful ” Medical Professionals  From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased by an average of approximately 21 percent per year  Our analysis showed that most recently—for fiscal years 2015 and 2016—BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals accounted for the largest portion of BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures across the various occupation groups and was primarily responsible for the overall increase in BOP’s total retention incentive expenditures from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016  For example, in fiscal year 2016, BOP spent approximately 42 percent of total retention incentives expenditures for medical professionals ($5 8 million), 27 percent on correctional officers ($3 8 million), and the remaining 31 percent on employees in other occupations  In total, BOP retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals increased from approximately $2 7 million in fiscal year 2012 to $5 8 million in fiscal year 2016, as shown in figure 4  The increase accounted for 92 percent of BOP’s total increase in retention incentive expenditures during the five-year period  In comparison, BOP’s retention incentive expenditures for correctional officers and all other occupations remained relatively steady from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, increasing by an average of approximately 1 percent per year  According to our analysis, the increase in retention incentive expenditures for medical professionals during the five years is partially explained by the increase in the number of institutions providing retention incentives to medical professionals  Specifically, from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the number of institutions providing retention incentives to medical professionals increased from 53 institutions with 341 employees in medical occupations receiving retention incentives to 84 institutions providing retention incentives to a total of 646 employees in medical occupations  According to BOP officials, BOP primarily uses retention incentives for medical professionals in an effort to retain these employees by supplementing BOP salaries which are generally lower than salaries offered to medical professionals in the private sector  Officials told us that BOP has designated medical professional positions as hard-to-fill and, therefore, BOP retaining these professionals in a correctional setting requires the use of a variety of incentives, including retention incentives, in order to increase pay  BOP has a number of internal controls in place to ensure that retention incentive applications meet BOP and other requirements  BOP officials told us that these controls are part of a multilayered application and review process that begins at the institution and culminates at BOP’s Central Office  Our review of a random sample of 40 application packet case files for retention incentives awarded from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 found that they all generally incorporated the internal controls described by officials  The key controls in this process include: Application review at the institution and regional levels  According to BOP officials, the retention incentive application process begins with an institution’s human resources office, whose staff complete a retention incentive application on behalf of an employee  The institution’s human resources office verifies that the information in the application justifies a retention incentive and that funds are available to pay the incentive  Although it is not required, BOP officials said that they use a retention incentive application checklist to help institutions ensure that retention incentive applications are complete  The institution’s human resources office then submits the completed application packet, which includes supporting documentation, to the warden for review  Next, the application packet is forwarded to the respective BOP regional director who also reviews it for accuracy and completeness  The regional director then adds an approval statement and forwards the packet to the Central Office for final review and approval  Of the 40 randomly selected application packet case files that we reviewed, 36 included a retention incentive checklist used by the institutions and all contained information to justify the retention incentive as well as a statement of the regional director’s approval  Central Office’s final application approval  BOP policy requires that all retention incentive applications undergo two levels of review in BOP’s Central Office: first by the Human Resource Management Division’s (HRMD) Staffing and Employee Relations Section (SERS) and next by HRMD’s Personnel Director, for final review and approval  According to BOP officials, during the review process there is ongoing communication between the various entities to ensure that applications are complete and accurate; for example, if SERS finds an error in the application or requests additional information, SERS returns the application to the regional or institutional level for correction and re-review  All of the 40 BOP application packet case files that we reviewed included approvals by HRMD’s Personnel Director or an authorized official, as required by BOP policy  Annual review and re-certification to continue retention incentives  According to BOP policy, on an annual basis, institutions’ human resources offices are required to review employees’ retention incentives to determine whether the incentive is still warranted  Payment of a retention incentive may be recertified and continued as long as the conditions giving rise to the original determination to pay the incentive still exist and funds are available  For each retention incentive, an institution’s human resources office must determine whether to continue, adjust, or terminate the incentive within one year of the initial or most recent approval  If the human resources office decides to continue the retention incentive, the institution’s warden must again submit a retention incentive application  Applications to continue the retention incentive proceed through the same review and approval process as initial applications  Of the 40 application files that we reviewed, 29 were continuations and 8 were initial requests for a retention incentive  According to BOP officials, after the initial approval of a retention incentive, an institution’s human resources office has primary responsibility for the monitoring of retention incentive payments  According to officials, institutions use a variety of internal controls to monitor the expiration, continuation, or termination of retention incentives, for example: Monitoring expiration dates  BOP officials stated that institutions’ human resources offices monitor retention incentives in order to identify incentives that are approaching their expiration date and need to be terminated or renewed  For example, according to BOP officials from USP Atwater, FCC Butner and FCI Phoenix, staff from their institutions’ human resources offices may generate a retention incentive activity report and cross reference this report with their locally generated tracking sheets  This process helps identify retention incentives approaching their expiration dates so that the human resources offices can submit a request for continuation before the incentive expires  Using automated reminders to prompt file review  BOP officials stated that institutions use automated reminders to alert human resources staff to check the records of retention incentive recipients for human resources-related events such as promotions or relocations that could affect the continuation of a retention incentive  Following a checklist of steps for relocation processes  BOP officials told us that in April 2016 they instituted a checklist that outlines steps that an institution’s human resources staff must take when employees relocate to a different institution  Based on our review of this checklist, one step on the sheet prompts human resources staff to review the employee’s retention incentive  According to BOP policy, when an employee receiving a retention incentive transfers to another location, the human resources office where the employee was receiving the retention incentive is responsible for submitting a request to terminate the incentive  The termination must be effective the last day of the pay period that the employee occupies the position  Submitting forgiveness waivers  BOP officials told us that institutions submit forgiveness waivers if a request to continue a retention incentive is not submitted and approved prior to the retention incentive expiring  BOP officials said that a forgiveness waiver is considered an acknowledgement of an administrative error and is a late submission of a retention incentive renewal that was still warranted  The waiver is not a request to forgive an overpayment since the employee was still considered to be eligible for the retention incentive  Of the 40 retention incentive applications that we reviewed, 5 applications included forgiveness waivers to excuse the tardiness of the filing and request continuations of the retention incentive  According to BOP officials, BOP conducts periodic audits and reviews of its human capital activities and related internal controls, to ensure that retention incentives are being used appropriately  The following offices conduct various audits and reviews involving BOP’s retention incentives: BOP’s Program Review Division (PRD) audits regional and institutional human resources functions  PRD audits BOP’s regional and institutional human resources offices to ensure that they are in compliance with BOP policies and procedures  According to BOP officials, as part of the audit process, PRD audits retention incentives to ensure that they have the proper approvals and are justified  PRD audits each institution’s human resources office at least every three years  During these audits, PRD generates retention incentive activity reports (the same reports that institutions run when monitoring for expiration dates), to check the accuracy of retention incentive programs under review  Following each audit, PRD issues a final report with findings to the institution and to the staff operating the program area under audit  Institutions respond to the report with corrective actions that the institution will take to address the findings  When the institution has resolved all corrective actions from the audit, the audit is closed  Additionally, each quarter, PRD provides HRMD with a report that summarizes its quarterly audit findings  According to BOP officials, HRMD uses these reports to identify any agency-wide trends that need to be addressed  Our review of BOP data showed that between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, PRD conducted nearly 200 audits  For example, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, PRD audited five institutions’ and regional offices’ human resource management functions  During these audits, PRD identified nine deficiencies, one of which pertained to retention incentives  Specifically, it found that one audited institution did not terminate an employee’s retention incentive after the employee had relocated to another institution  To correct the deficiency, the institution cancelled the retention incentive which discontinued future disbursements  According to BOP officials, a bill was generated to recoup the overpayment from the employee  BOP institutions conduct annual operation reviews of internal functions, such as human resources  BOP officials told us that each institution conducts annual operational reviews of various internal functions, such as human resources  According to BOP’s Program Review Guidelines for Human Resource Servicing Offices, during these reviews, institutions are required to review supporting documentation for staff currently receiving an incentive to determine if the incentives are still warranted  If the initial request for the retention incentive was made over the preceding 12 months, institutions are also required to ensure that it was approved  According to BOP officials, the results of these reviews are reported to PRD through the Central Office  DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD) audits BOP’s human resources programs  According to BOP officials, JMD conducts audits of component-level human resources programs to determine whether BOP’s systems are compliant with DOJ policy and aligned with DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Plan  JMD’s most recent audit of BOP’s human resources programs that included a review of BOP’s retention incentives occurred in September 2010 at BOP’s Human Resource Service Center in Grand Prairie, Texas  JMD found that in some cases BOP granted retention incentives prior to the signing of service agreements  JMD also found that BOP lacked documentation to authorize a group retention incentive for employees at its Victorville, California institution  BOP’s written response to the findings stated that JMD incorrectly applied the service agreement requirement, as service agreements were not warranted in the specific case that it identified  Additionally, BOP stated that the documents JMD identified as missing from the case files in question were kept in separate files and not required to be part of the retention incentive application  JMD agreed with BOP’s responses and in January 2013, JMD closed out the audit’s findings noting that these responses satisfied all required corrective actions  While BOP takes a number of steps to determine current workforce needs and how to fill those needs, BOP does not strategically plan for how retention incentives can be used to meet long-term human capital goals  BOP officials stated that planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly workforce utilization meetings or manpower salary meetings  During these meetings, executive staff at the institution discuss the current state of the institution’s workforce  According to the BOP officials, while considering attrition, hiring, and turnover rates, the executive staff decide strategies they will employ to attract and retain employees for their current needs  While officials we spoke with at four institutions have discussed retention incentives at their workforce utilization meetings, details about the content of these discussions ranged  According to these officials and our review of meeting minutes from the four institutions, discussions about retention incentives respond to each institution’s short-term staffing situation rather than address future staffing needs based on an overall strategic human capital plan  For example: USP Atwater officials told us that they review the current turnover rate, budget, projected vacancies, and use of retention incentives at annual budget development meetings  Meeting minutes reflected the following on retention incentives: “retention … still necessary to retain staff and hard-to-fill positions ” FCC Butner is a medical facility that offers retention incentives to all medical officers (all types of doctors) and nurses (practitioners, registered, etc ) at the institution  According to Butner officials, during workforce utilization meetings, Butner officials discuss recruitment and staffing trends for the institution and plans for how to address any staffing challenges  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  FCC Pollock executive staff discuss current institutional salary expenditures and projections and the status of vacant positions at workforce utilization meetings  While meeting minutes we reviewed indicated discussions about projected expenditures for incentive awards, the minutes did not differentiate between retention incentive awards, and other incentive awards such as recruitment or relocation incentive awards  FCI Phoenix officials stated that in their workforce utilization meetings, executive staff discuss salary projections and vacancy statuses  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  BOP decisions about retention incentives are currently not tied to any strategic human capital plan for how to use human capital flexibilities— such as retention incentives—to address their ongoing challenge of retaining staff in hard-to-fill positions  According to officials, retention incentives are awarded on an as-needed basis, determined by an institution’s warden, if funds are available  According to key principles for effective strategic human capital planning, such planning is an important component of an agency’s effort to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff needed for an agency to achieve its goals  Specifically, senior leaders should be involved in developing, communicating, and implementing strategic human capital plans  Within an agency’s strategic human capital plan, the human capital policies, practices, and programs—for example, an agency’s retention incentive program—should clearly link to the human capital and program goals of the organization  By not having a strategic human capital plan that clearly establishes strategies that will be used to achieve specific human capital goals, BOP cannot ensure that its institutions are strategically managing their workforces in a manner that meets the agency’s human capital needs  In August 2017, BOP officials told us that they began drafting a strategic human capital operating plan that will include strategic objectives, action plans, performance objectives and measures, and evaluation/reporting requirements  Officials stated that the plan will also include planning regarding the use of human capital flexibilities, such as retention incentives  BOP officials told us that they anticipate that the strategic human capital operating plan will be a supplement to their workforce utilization meetings and that an agency-wide plan will provide a set of strategies for all institutions to consider  However, BOP could not provide documentation of the project beginning or whether it would include a strategic approach specific to retention incentives  Including retention incentives in BOP’s strategic human capital operating plan would create a roadmap for the agency and the institutions to use to move from being reactive in their current workforce needs—for example, awarding retention incentives on an ad hoc basis when funds are available—to being strategic in how retention incentives are used and to ensure that these and other flexibilities help the agency achieve its long-term workforce goals  From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, BOP spent more than $59 million on retention incentives but has not established any measures to evaluate their effectiveness  According to officials, BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives because BOP officials consider a retention incentive successful if an employee does not leave the agency  However, BOP also uses other human capital flexibilities along with retention incentives to help retain staff  For example, BOP uses physician and dental comparability allowances—additional pay to a physician or dentist who enters into an agreement for a specified period of service—to help retain these medical personnel  According to officials, it would otherwise be difficult to compete with private sector salaries without the use of all available incentives  However, BOP has not studied whether or how retention incentives have contributed to employees’ retention in relation to other incentives such as physician and dental comparability allowances  According to our work on strategic human capital management and OPM’s guidance, it is crucial for organizations to evaluate the success of their human capital strategies, such as the use of retention incentives  In measuring the performance of these strategies and their contribution to key programmatic results, agencies can make adjustments, if necessary  For example, agencies can use evaluation results to make targeted investments in certain human capital strategies—such as the use of retention incentives—creating a cycle of strategic workforce management, where evaluation informs planning, planning dictates strategies, and strategies are evaluated for effectiveness  While BOP uses retention incentives to address critical skills gaps—such as with medical professionals—evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help BOP determine whether and how retention incentives, as well as other human capital flexibilities, contribute to an employee’s continued employment at BOP or if adjustments to BOP retention strategies must be made for improved results  BOP officials agreed that evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help them be more strategic about their human capital needs and spending on incentives  By including and implementing such an evaluation in its upcoming strategic human capital operating plan, BOP could better determine if it is making maximum use of its funds to retain the necessary qualified personnel or if changes must be made to most effectively retain its staff  As the largest employer within DOJ with some staff working in remote locations and undesirable conditions, BOP relies on a number of available flexibilities, including retention incentives, to help retain its employees  However, BOP currently lacks a strategic approach for using and evaluating retention incentives to address human capital goals  Given BOP’s ongoing staffing challenges, for example, retaining staff in hard-to- fill medical positions, developing a plan that includes a thoughtful blueprint for using retention incentives could help BOP better anticipate and address staffing needs  Moreover, evaluating its use of retention incentives could help BOP determine whether these incentives are effective or whether adjustments are needed to better retain its employees  By using evaluation results to inform planning, and planning to inform how retention incentives are used, BOP would be better positioned to achieve its long-term human capital goals and address its critical staffing needs  We are making two recommendations to BOP: 1  The Director of BOP should include in the forthcoming strategic human capital operating plan, 1) human capital goals and 2) strategies on how human capital flexibilities—including retention incentives—will be used to meet these goals  (Recommendation 1) 2  The Director of BOP should evaluate the effectiveness of BOP’s use of retention incentives to help determine whether the incentives have helped BOP achieve its human capital goals or if adjustments in retention incentives are needed  (Recommendation 2) We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ  In an email received November 15, 2017, the DOJ liaison stated that DOJ concurred with our recommendations  The Department did not provide official written comments to include in our report, but did provide written technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Attorney General and the Director of BOP  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) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  This report examines (1) how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) what internal controls are in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives  To determine how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives, we reviewed BOP’s July 2012 report on its use of recruitment, relocation, and retention (3R) incentives  We then obtained underlying retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ’s Justice Management Division because it serves as the focal point for performance and financial information for all Department of Justice components and employees, including BOP  In particular, we obtained employee-level retention incentive payroll data for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We selected this time period because it includes the most recent five complete fiscal years for which data were available and because we believe five years is sufficient time to identify trends in BOP’s retention incentive expenditures  We analyzed and aggregated the employee-level data by institution, occupation, and employee grade level  To identify trends, we compared per fiscal year expenditures across the various categories of occupations and locations across the five years  Additionally, we categorized institutions by BOP region, institutions that use group retention incentives, and institutions that use individual retention incentives  We also categorized occupations as medical professionals, correctional officers, and all other occupations and compared aggregate retention incentive expenditures for the different groups  Using information from BOP’s website and testimonial evidence from BOP officials on its health care system, for the purposes of this report, we defined medical professionals as BOP employees in occupations that provide medical, dental, and mental health care services and who do not solely provide these services in an administrative function  For the purposes of our analyses, medical professionals are dentists, dental assistants and hygienists, diagnostic radiological technologists, health aid and technicians, medical doctors (including psychiatrists), medical technologists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physician assistants, and practical nurses and psychologists  To assess the employee-level retention incentive payroll data’s reliability, we obtained and analyzed documentation on systems’ capabilities and data control, interviewed data users and managers responsible for maintaining data, conducted checks for completeness and logical consistency, and compared the employee-level data to aggregated institution-level retention incentive expenditure data from BOP’s Financial Management Information System  We found the employee-level data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  Additionally for this objective, we reviewed documents such as the DOJ’s Financial Management Information System Sub-Object Classification Code Guide and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families to respectively identify the system codes used to track retention incentives expenditures and to identify the names for each occupational series code in the datasets  We also interviewed BOP Human Resource Management headquarters officials to obtain information on the primary purposes for BOP’s use of retention incentives and their views on identified retention incentive expenditures trends  We also interviewed U S  Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) officials to better understand how BOP and PHS manage costs, including retention incentive expenditures, for PHS staff assigned to BOP  BOP partners with PHS to acquire medical staff to provide medical care for BOP’s inmate population  BOP reimburses PHS for the costs of compensation and benefits—including retention incentive payments, if applicable—for PHS staff assigned to BOP  PHS has final approval authority for retention incentives paid to PHS staff assigned to BOP facilities  Furthermore, we obtained aggregated retention incentive expenditure data from PHS on the total amount of funds BOP reimbursed PHS for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  For the reliability of PHS’s data, we reviewed the system’s data fields to check that the appropriate fields were used to provide data and interviewed data users and managers to discuss how expenditures are recorded and maintained  We found the PHS data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  To identify and describe the internal controls that BOP has in place related to retention incentives, we obtained and analyzed documentation regarding BOP requirements and guidance for the use of retention incentives  We also interviewed officials from BOP’s Central Office who are responsible for the administration, management, and oversight of BOP’s human capital management systems, including retention incentives  We focused on the management and administrative controls used by BOP to review, approve, re-certify, and monitor retention incentives  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at 4 of the 122 institutions to obtain illustrative examples regarding the internal controls in place at these institutions to ensure the proper disbursement of retention incentives  We interviewed BOP officials at Federal Correctional Complex Pollock in Pollock, LA; Federal Correctional Complex Butner in Butner, NC; United States Penitentiary, Atwater in Atwater, CA and Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix, in Phoenix, AZ  These institutions were selected to ensure variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP region, and security-level  Although the information we obtained from the interviews with officials at these four institutions cannot be generalized to other BOP institutions, these interviews provided important insights and perspectives about the use of retention incentives at BOP institutions  We also reviewed a non-generalizable random sample of 40 retention incentive application packet case files to determine the extent to which these files contained documentation on the internal control activities in place to monitor the application, approval, and funds disbursement processes of BOP’s retention incentive program  To identify our sample, we used employee-level expenditure data to randomly select 40 application files from the universe of BOP employees who received retention incentives from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Each application file was reviewed by two GAO analysts who each assessed the extent to which each application contained the appropriate justification, approval signatures, and other documentation such as an application checklist and whether the application was an initial or continuation application  To determine the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives, we interviewed BOP officials regarding their experiences with retention incentives, how they use retention incentives to strategically manage their workforce needs, how the agency evaluates the effectiveness of retention incentives, and how retention incentives contribute to BOP’s broader human capital goals  We then compared these efforts to our work on strategic human capital planning, specifically in terms of planning for and evaluating the use of human capital flexibilities  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at four BOP institutions mentioned above to obtain illustrative examples of how workforce planning occurs at these institutions  We also reviewed the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General Report 16-02 “Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges” (March 2016) and our past work to better understand the challenges that BOP faces in retaining medical professionals and other staff  Table 2 provides the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) fiscal year 2016 retention incentive expenditures by various occupations and groups of occupations, such as medical professionals, correctional officers, and other occupations  A range of occupations are reflected in the table primarily as a result of four California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex Victorville—providing retention incentives to all employees at General Schedule grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System  In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director) and Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge) managed the work  Also, David Alexander, Renee Caputo, Willie Commons III, Jamarla Edwards, Robert Goldenkoff, Chelsa Gurkin, Eric Hauswirth, Janice Latimer, Lerone Reid, Rachel Stoiko, and Adam Vogt made significant contributions to this report 


Report 2:  Postal Service  The Forest Service and IRS also reported donating property, such as office furniture and equipment, through the State Agencies for Surplus Property program  Four agencies reported selling some of their property from a space reduction project  For example, HUD’s regional office in Denver sold some of its excess office furniture, which dated to 1992, and recycled or discarded the remainder  When disposing of property from a space reduction project, some agencies sought assistance from GSA  GSA’s Office of Personal Property Management (GSA OPPM) assists agencies, when requested, in disposing of personal property, and officials at selected agency locations reported receiving assistance and training  In one example, GSA officials told us that a regional office of a selected agency needed to dispose of an office full of furniture and, in addition to using the disposal process, contacted GSA OPPM for additional assistance  Because of the large amount of property, GSA OPPM took steps to make other agencies in the area aware of the available property and facilitated access to allow agencies to view the property  In another example, GSA OPPM officials met with officials from another agency in the planning stages of a relocation to answer questions and provided advice and guidance for disposing of personal property  When the Forest Service’s lease on its Denver-area office expired, the agency leased space in another location, requiring a move but reducing its office by over 21,000 square feet  The agency sought to conform to new space utilization standards, which required more efficiently-designed furniture than its existing office furniture  Because the Forest Service did not reuse most of its old furniture in its new space, it no longer had a need for it  The Forest Service retained some of the furniture for use in other Forest Service offices within the region and declared the remainder as excess  Through GSAXcess, the Forest Service transferred some of its excess furniture to other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U S  Postal Service  The Forest Service sold some furniture at auction; broken items were recycled  Agencies may dispose of large amounts of property during a space reduction project, but overall, agency officials reported few challenges in doing so  This may be in part because any effects from space reductions are distributed across an entire agency  Although selected agencies’ average Reduce the Footprint space reduction goals ranged from 97,000 square feet to 662,000 square feet each fiscal year from 2016 to 2020, each agency’s efforts consisted of dozens of geographically dispersed projects of various sizes to be completed over several years  For example, as of fiscal year 2016, EPA had 21 space reduction projects planned from fiscal years 2016 through 2021, with individual anticipated reductions ranging from less than 1,000 square feet to more than 140,000 square feet  At least one project is present in 8 of EPA’s 10 regions  Agencies’ ability to pay for space reduction projects may also have affected these projects’ effects  Two selected agencies said they delayed projects because of a lack of funding  Agencies may reduce costs over the long term because of lower rent for smaller spaces but they may have to pay some expenses upfront, such as for moving, renovations, and new furniture  Although officials from all five agencies told us they have been able to manage personal property disposals from space reductions, they identified factors that can impact the efficient use of the disposal process during a space reduction project and some strategies taken to address them: Inventorying non-accountable property: As a space reduction project commenced at a location, most selected agencies reported that they did not have a complete list of the personal property affected by the project  As previously described, selected agencies do not maintain an itemized list of non-accountable personal property and for four agencies, office furniture is generally non-accountable  During a space reduction project, property personnel had to develop some type of inventory to identify property that would be needed and property that should be disposed of  Selected agencies had various methods for conducting such an inventory  For example, officials from two agencies said they walked through the affected space and created a list of all the items  Officials from one agency said a contractor was hired for this purpose  Most agencies reported using the inventory they created to enter information on excess property into GSAXcess  Officials at GSA’s OPPM offices in Philadelphia and Fort Worth said that they offer training and guidance to agencies in conducting inventories  Managing disposals within time frames: Agencies generally are not able to begin the disposal process until the property is no longer in use  For example, agency staff continue to use their old workspaces until they can move to new workspaces  Agencies also face deadlines, such as vacating space due to a lease expiration or commencement of renovation work  Officials from three agencies described challenges completing the disposal process—reporting excess personal property as well as completing transactions to transfer, donate, sell or abandon or destroy it—within required time frames  Some agency officials reported using different strategies to address this timing challenge  For example, one agency official was able to enter information about the excess property items into GSAXcess while employees were still using them  According to the official, this was possible because a note could be included in the property item’s description in GSAXcess, with the date when the property would be available  When the property was no longer in-use within the agency, the transfers or other transactions were completed  Additionally, an agency may conduct an on-site screening of its unneeded property to allow other federal agencies or authorized parties to physically view and identify any furniture they want  For example, GSA OPPM officials in Philadelphia conducted an on-site screening of unneeded office furniture resulting from the agency’s regional office relocation  Federal agencies collectively have billions of dollars’ worth of personal property, ranging from office furniture to highly specialized equipment that, when in use, supports agency missions  However, the agencies in our review did not have policies and systematic processes for identifying unneeded property  Furthermore, other’s previous work has shown that agencies across the government may not be effectively assessing their property for continued need, leading to idle property that could be put to better use elsewhere within the agency or the federal government and potential unnecessary storage costs  Consequently, agencies may be retaining property that is no longer needed  GSA has recognized that opportunities may exist for agencies to more effectively manage property under their control, but according to GSA OGP officials, GSA’s authority is limited to agency property that has been declared excess or surplus  According to OMB staff, OMB has the authority to issue guidance, such as controller alerts, emphasizing agencies’ property management obligations, and thus, it is well-positioned to assist agencies to more effectively manage their property and to ensure unneeded property is made available to others, as appropriate  The Director of OMB should provide guidance to executive agencies on managing their personal property, emphasizing that agencies’ policies or processes should reflect the requirement to continuously review and identify unneeded personal property  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to OMB, EPA, the Forest Service, GSA, HUD, and IRS for comment  OMB stated that it did not have any comments on our draft report in an email and provided a technical clarification to the report, which we incorporated  GSA and IRS provided technical comments in an email, which we incorporated as appropriate  EPA, the Forest Service, and HUD each stated in an email that they did not have any comments on the draft report  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the U S  Department of Agriculture, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@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 making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  The objectives of this report were to examine (1) how selected federal agencies assess whether personal property is needed and (2) how selected federal agencies dispose of unneeded personal property, and how, if at all, space reduction efforts have affected disposals  We excluded certain types of personal property, such as aircraft and vehicles, from our review because of our prior or ongoing work  To address our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal statutes and regulations pertaining to personal property management and disposal, our prior work, and reports by federal agencies’ Offices of Inspector General on personal property issues  In addition, to determine how selected federal agencies assess whether personal property is needed, we conducted background searches to inform our understanding of key practices for personal property and asset management through a search of databases containing peer-reviewed articles, government reports, general news, hearings and transcripts, and association and think tank papers  We also reviewed relevant asset management practices, such as ASTM standards and the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Asset Management Evaluation and Personal Property Asset Management Study  In order to select agencies that may have had recent experiences with excess personal property, we selected 5 of the 24 agencies that were included in the Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint initiatives  We selected agencies based on their overall Freeze the Footprint results, in terms of the amount of square feet reduced, and Reduce the Footprint goals for reducing domestic office and warehouse space, and the amount of personal property declared excess over the last 5 years, as reported to GSA’s GSAXcess system from fiscal years 2012 to 2016, to coincide with the Freeze the Footprint time frame  Specifically, we obtained information on the Freeze the Footprint results and Reduce the Footprint goals from the Office of Management and Budget’s public website and from Performance gov  We limited our scope to civilian federal agencies with personal property within the United States  Although we have previously reported that the overall accuracy of data that agencies reported on office and warehouse space reductions could be improved, we found that the data were generally reliable for our purposes  After reviewing the data for any inconsistencies and discussing the information with selected agency officials to ensure that the reported numbers for the Reduce the Footprint initiative were current, we determined that the quality of the data were sufficient for our use in selecting agencies  In order to select agencies that were more likely to have relevant, recent experience with excess personal property from space reduction efforts, we ranked these agencies based on their Freeze the Footprint results, Reduce the Footprint goals, and the amount of declared excess personal property, and eliminated the bottom third of the agencies  We selected GSA as our first agency due to its central role in excess personal property disposal, and randomly selected four additional agencies from the remaining agencies  These agencies were the Environmental Protection Agency, the U S  Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of the Treasury  The organizational structure of two selected agencies, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Treasury, is different than the other three agencies in that they are comprised primarily of sub-agencies  Therefore, we selected the largest sub-agency for both departments—the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service within the Department of the Treasury  We obtained information from the five selected federal agencies on the total value and number of items in their asset management systems in 2017 to understand the size and scope of personal property assets they manage  As we used the information to describe the scope of the agencies’ property holdings, we did not verify the data  We also analyzed documents, such as the selected agencies’ personal property management policies, along with policies from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Energy, to understand how they addressed requirements for managing personal property  We included these agencies’ policies based on our review of prior work related to personal property  We interviewed officials from the selected agencies about their processes for managing personal property assets, such as their inventory procedures  However, we did not independently assess agencies’ inventory practices  We also interviewed staff from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss regulations and policies pertaining to personal property and OMB’s role in personal property management  To determine how selected federal agencies dispose of excess and surplus personal property and how space reduction efforts may have affected disposals, in addition to the above, we obtained information from each selected agency on its space reduction projects and interviewed officials about their roles and responsibilities in the agency’s space reduction planning efforts and personal property disposal process  We also conducted site visits to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Denver, Colorado to meet with regional and local officials from each selected agency responsible for managing and disposing of personal property  These locations were chosen based on the number of our selected federal agencies present, the amount of excess personal property declared, and the existence of space reduction projects  We discussed property accountability policies, overall personal property disposal processes, and how the disposal processes were affected by government-wide space savings initiatives, such as Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint, and any efforts to prepare for them, and requested supporting documentation on the amount of property declared as excess and the disposition outcomes of that property  We did not independently verify the information that was provided, as data reported as excess from space reduction projects are not always tracked separately from other property disposed of for other reasons  We reviewed documents and interviewed officials from GSA’s Office of Personal Property Management (GSA OPPM) in GSA’s headquarters, in Philadelphia and in Fort Worth, Texas, to discuss their role in assisting agencies in disposing of personal property and to obtain their views on how personal property disposals have been affected by space reductions  Finally, we interviewed GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy (GSA OGP) officials about the Interagency Committee on Property Management and the Property Management Executive Council regarding their personal property and asset management efforts and met with officials and representatives from the following: the U S  Department of Agriculture’s Centralized Excess Property Operation, the Users and Screeners Association–Federal Excess Personal Property, and the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property to discuss their roles in the reuse and disposal of Federal personal property  We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, requires executive agencies, in part, to promptly report excess property to the General Services Administration (GSA) and dispose of it in accordance with GSA regulations  Each executive agency is also required to fulfill requirements for personal property by using existing agency property or by obtaining excess property from other federal agencies before purchasing new property  GSA’s disposal process, as laid out in federal regulation, incorporates and facilitates these requirements, providing a means for both disposing of and acquiring unneeded property: agencies with excess personal property can dispose of it and other agencies, authorized non-federal entities, and, eventually, the general public can acquire this property  After determining that a property item is no longer needed to complete its mission, an agency may have several options for proceeding before formally declaring the property as excess to GSA: Immediately authorize abandonment or destruction of the property: Determine, in writing, that the property has no commercial value or the estimated cost of its continued care and handling would exceed the estimated proceeds from its sale  If an agency makes such a determination, it may abandon or destroy the property without reporting it to GSA as excess  In lieu of abandonment or destruction, an agency may donate excess personal property to a public body without going through GSA  Directly transfer the property to another federal agency: Agencies usually become aware of available property through informal means, such as a contact at the disposing agency, according to GSA  GSA approval for such a transfer is not needed if the total original acquisition cost for each item does not exceed $10,000  If this cost is greater than $10,000, the acquiring agency must obtain prior approval from GSA  In either case, the acquiring agency must notify GSA of the transfer  Directly transfer the property to an eligible recipient under a special authority: Special authorities are legal provisions that are designed to give excess assets to groups that may use them for a particular purpose, such as universities that can use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s scientific equipment in their research  Some authorities exist to collectively support all federal agencies and some support an agency-specific program  According to GSA, the primary government-wide programs are the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and Executive Order 12999, also known as the Computers for Learning program  Recipients meeting eligibility requirements of the special authority contact agencies to determine the availability of property, and the agency and recipient must complete the appropriate documentation to make a record of the transfer  An agency initiates GSA’s disposal process by formally declaring property as excess, either by completing and submitting a form to GSA or, more typically, by electronic entry of an item into GSAXcess, GSA’s real-time, Web-based site for facilitating the disposal process  The latter method requires agency employees to enter information about the excess property using data entry screens that include help screens and error messages  GSA encourages reporting agencies to provide a complete description of the property and to include multiple photographs of the property  The disposal process generally consists of four sequential stages in which personal property may be transferred to another agency or eligible recipient, donated, sold, or abandoned or destroyed, as described below  If the property is not disposed of during one stage, it advances to the next stage, though the holding agency generally retains physical custody of the property until it is disposed of  Table 2 illustrates actions a disposing agency and eligible property recipients take during each of the four stages of the disposal process after an agency declares property excess  In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made important contributions to this report: David J  Wise (Director), Nancy Lueke (Assistant Director), Travis Thomson (Analyst-in-Charge), Lacey Coppage, Rosa Leung, Josh Ormond, Amy Rosewarne, Pamela Vines, and Elizabeth Wood 

ground_truth: The federal government owns billions of dollars of personal property—such as office furniture, scientific equipment, and industrial machinery. By law, each agency is required to follow GSA's disposal process so that an agency's unneeded property can be used by other agencies or certain non-federal entities. Since 2012, agencies have reduced their office and warehouse space due to government-wide initiatives, a reduction that in turn has required agencies to dispose of some affected personal property. GAO was asked to review how federal agencies identify and dispose of unneeded personal property. This report examines (1) how selected agencies assess whether personal property is needed and (2) how these agencies dispose of unneeded property and how, if at all, space reduction efforts have affected disposals. GAO reviewed federal statutes and regulations, and selected five agencies—EPA, Forest Service, GSA, HUD, and IRS—mainly based on space reduction results and goals. GAO reviewed these agencies' property disposal data for 2012 through 2016 and interviewed headquarters and field staff about their property management and disposal processes. The five agencies GAO reviewed—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Forest Service, General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—generally do not have policies or processes for identifying unneeded personal property, such as office furniture, on a proactive basis. Instead, officials from these agencies said they typically identified unneeded property as a result of a “triggering event,” such as an office space reduction. Executive agencies are required by law to continuously review property under their control to identify unneeded personal property and then dispose of it promptly. Without such policies or processes, agencies may not be routinely identifying unneeded property that could be used elsewhere, and efforts to maximize federal personal property use and minimize unnecessary storage costs may not be effective. GSA has issued regulations establishing a government-wide disposal process for unneeded personal property. However, according to GSA officials, the agency lacks the authority to promulgate regulations or formal guidance on management of in-use agency property, and there is no government-wide guidance to agencies on identifying unneeded personal property. Agencies are required to have internal control activities—such as policies and procedures—for reasonable assurance of efficient operations and minimal resource waste, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides guidance to agencies on implementing such activities. Guidance from OMB that emphasizes agencies' internal control responsibilities could help ensure that agencies are proactively and regularly identifying property that is no longer needed. The selected agencies reported little difficulty in following GSA's personal property disposal process, reporting over 37,000 items as unneeded property in fiscal years 2012 through 2016. This property was disposed of through transfers to other agencies, donations to authorized recipients, sales, or discarding. When disposing of personal property from space reduction projects at locations GAO visited, agencies also reported using GSA's process (see figure). Overall, agencies said they have not experienced major challenges with disposing of personal property from space reduction efforts. This lack of challenges could be because projects are geographically dispersed and spread over several years. OMB should provide guidance to executive agencies on managing their personal property, emphasizing that agencies' policies or processes should reflect the requirement to continuously review and identify unneeded personal property. OMB did not comment on GAO's recommendation.