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



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



Report 2: With a staff of over 47,000 members, the Coast Guard operates a multimission fleet of 201 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and over 1,400 boats and ships  Operational control of surface and air assets is divided into two geographic Areas (Pacific and Atlantic), within which are nine Districts consisting of 37 sectors and the stations within them  The Coast Guard’s program oversight, policy development, and personnel administration are carried out at the Coast Guard’s headquarters  As shown in table 1, the Coast Guard is responsible for 11 statutory missions identified in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended  The Coast Guard manages these missions through six mission programs, also listed in table 1  As part of its marine safety mission, for example, the Coast Guard conducts, among other activities, safety inspections and vessel accident investigations, including those involving commercial fishing vessels, which are part of an industry with one of the highest death rates of any industry in the United States  For each of its 11 missions, the Coast Guard has developed goals and targets to assess and communicate agency performance  The Coast Guard’s performance assessment process also includes identifying performance gaps and implementing corrective actions to address unmet performance goals  As part of its process, the Coast Guard is to establish targets for the current and subsequent 2 fiscal years, according to Coast Guard officials  Each target is set by the Coast Guard, but according to the Coast Guard’s Annual Performance Report (APR), some are derived from external factors  For example, DHS requires that Coast Guard set a 100 percent target for the percent of people in imminent danger saved in the maritime environment  Further, several of the Coast Guard’s assets used to conduct these missions are approaching the end of their intended service lives  As part of its efforts to modernize its assets used to carry out various missions, the Coast Guard has begun acquiring new vessels, such as the National Security Cutter, the Fast Response Cutter as well as other assets  However, concerns surrounding the affordability of this effort remain as the Coast Guard continues to pursue multiple new acquisitions without long-term planning to guide the affordability of its acquisition portfolio  Figure 1 shows the Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter and National Security Cutter  We previously reported on actions the Coast Guard could take to ensure that, among other things, it addresses limitations posed by incomplete data, the use of unrealistic asset performance data, and limitations with its performance goal data, for more effective program management  Examples of data limitations that we have recommended that the Coast Guard take action on are below  Improve completeness of mission data  In December 2017, we found that several different federal agencies play a role in overseeing and promoting commercial fishing vessel safety, including the Coast Guard  As part of its marine safety activities, the Coast Guard conducts, among other activities, safety inspections and vessel accident investigations  Commercial fishing has one of the highest death rates of any industry in the United States and vessel disasters are the leading cause of fatalities among fishers, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health  However, our December 2017 review found that more information is needed to calculate vessel safety statistics that could enhance the Coast Guard’s knowledge about accident, injury, and fatality trends involving commercial fishing vessels  The Coast Guard collects some data on commercial fishing vessels that operate in federal waters—including a vessel’s length and construction date—but data on the population of the active U S  commercial fishing vessel fleet are not complete  Between 2006 and 2015, the Coast Guard investigated 2,101 commercial fishing vessel accidents that were identified as occurring in federal waters  While the number of accidents generally increased over this time period, the number of injuries and fatalities declined over the same 10-year period  However, we could not assess the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities by fishery— meaning the area in which a certain type of fish (e g , shrimp, salmon, crab) is caught—because the Coast Guard’s data is not complete  Further, we were unable to calculate the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities, because reliable data on certain information needed to do so—including the total number of vessels that are actively fishing and the fishery or region in which the vessel operates—are either not maintained or are not collected by the Coast Guard or other federal agencies  Having this information could be useful to carrying out the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission, which includes enforcing laws to prevent death, injury and property loss in the marine environment  We recommended in our December 2017 report that the Coast Guard ensure that data it collects during commercial fishing vessel incident investigations is accurately captured  We also recommended that the Coast Guard work with stakeholders to form a working group to determine an efficient means to establish a reliable estimate of the population of active commercial fishing vessels  The Coast Guard agreed with both recommendations, and in February 2018 informed us that it is in the process of developing additional data fields to capture more information, such as the fishery in which the commercial fishing is involved, and is engaging stakeholders to establish an appropriate working group  We will continue to monitor these actions  Use more realistic asset performance data  In our May 2016 report on Coast Guard strategic planning, we found that the Coast Guard did not provide field units with realistic goals for allocating assets, by mission  We reported that the Coast Guard’s strategic allocations of assets were based on unrealistic assumptions about the performance capacity of its assets and did not reflect asset condition and unscheduled maintenance  This was due, in part, to the Coast Guard not including information from its field units on the actual performance of its assets  For example, agency officials noted that one of its classes of cutters was 50 years old and these cutters were hampered by mechanical failures requiring emergency dry dock repairs, which resulted in reduced availability to carry out their missions during the year  In another example, a field unit stated that based on historical use, it planned for 575 hours per vessel for one type of cutter instead of the 825 hours performance capacity  Because actual asset use has consistently fallen below asset performance capacities, there is not a direct alignment between the Coast Guard’s strategic operational goals and its prospects for achieving those goals  As a result, the headquarters’ strategic intent, which is based on asset capacity rather than actual performance, did not provide the field with strategic, realistic goals for allocating assets by mission  Agencies should use quality information that is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and timely to achieve objectives and address related risks  We recommended that the Coast Guard incorporate field unit input, such as information on assets’ actual performance, to inform more realistic asset allocation decisions  The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation, and in February 2018 informed us that it plans to address this recommendation through changes to two process documents that are under revision, with an expected completion date in March 2018  Improve performance goal data  In our October 2017 review of Coast Guard performance goals, we reported that the Coast Guard and DHS identified limitations with two of the seven selected performance goals we reviewed, including the five year average number of recreational boating deaths and injuries  In particular, officials believe that many recreational boating injuries that do not require hospitalization are not reported to the Coast Guard  These officials believe that the amount of underreporting may vary over time due to changes in industry trends, making it difficult to accurately determine actual injury rates and program performance  We determined that the data for this performance goal was not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives due to these likely limitations  We found that the Coast Guard did not report the possible extent of these limitations with this performance goal in its fiscal year 2016 APR  For the other performance goal, the Coast Guard and DHS identified limitations with the number of detected incursions of foreign fishing vessels violating U S  waters, which is publicly reported in DHS’s APR  DHS’s review of this performance goal, reported in August 2015, raised questions about the validity of this goal—that is, whether it provides a useful measure of the Coast Guard’s performance  Specifically, the review noted that this performance goal is intended to measure a deterrence effect, but doing so is inherently difficult and may lead to contradictory interpretations of performance  In October 2017, we found that the data for this performance goal was sufficiently reliable for our reporting objective purposes, but questions remain about its validity  Reliable data is not a useful indication of performance unless it is also a valid representation of the goal being addressed  DHS officials reported that they did not include a discussion of the limitations for this performance goal in DHS’s fiscal year 2015 APR because the performance goal met the minimum threshold for data reliability despite the goal’s limitations  Coast Guard officials reported they were aware of these limitations and were working with DHS and OMB to improve the performance goal and implement corrective actions within 1 to 2 years  We recommended that the Coast Guard assess the extent to which documentation on performance data reliability contains appropriate information on known data reliability limitations and update these documents, as needed, based on the results of the assessment  The Coast Guard concurred and in February 2018, informed us that it had taken initial actions to address our recommendation  However, our preliminary review of these actions indicates that further action will be needed to fully address our recommendation, such as documenting and reporting the limitations of performance data  Our previous reports have identified areas in which the Coast Guard could improve the transparency of its data used for reporting on its mission performance and planning  Improve transparency of data on mission performance  In our October 2017 report on performance goals, we found that the Coast Guard’s APR has not been released publicly since 2011 due to a previous DHS leadership decision  Consequently, there has not been full visibility over performance across all of the Coast Guard’s missions  For example, one of the Coast Guard’s missions—defense readiness—has no goals that are publicly reported or shared with Congress, even though measures related to defense readiness are included in the Coast Guard’s APR  Coast Guard officials stated that they could see the benefit of publicly releasing their APR; however, DHS’s decision to limit the number of performance goals shared publicly has so far deterred the Coast Guard from pursuing the public release of its APR  DHS officials told us that the department is concerned about conflicting information that a component’s APR might present because it is vetted and produced separately from the DHS APR  However, the lack of transparency regarding performance data shared publicly and with Congress can result in an incomplete picture of mission performance and can limit effective oversight of Coast Guard operations  As a result, the public and Congress may be unable to determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is meeting its missions  We recommended that future Coast Guard APRs be available on the Coast Guard’s public website  The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and in February 2018, the Coast Guard informed us that it had completed its 2017 APR and are determining an appropriate approach for making it publicly available  Improve capital planning transparency  In our previously issued work on the Coast Guard’s annual 5-year capital investment plan (CIP), we found that the CIP does not consistently reflect current total cost estimates or the effects of tradeoffs that are made as part of the annual budget cycle  We made several recommendations in recent years intended to help the Coast Guard plan for future acquisitions and the difficult tradeoff decisions it will likely face  The Coast Guard generally concurred with these recommendations and is in various stages of implementation  For example, in 2017 we reported that we have made recommendations that DHS and the Coast Guard take several actions to gain an understanding of what the Coast Guard needs to meet its mission within its likely acquisition funding levels  These recommended actions included the Coast Guard: (1) conducting a comprehensive portfolio review across all its acquisitions to develop revised baselines that meet mission needs and reflect realistic funding scenarios and (2) developing a 20-year plan that identifies all necessary recapitalization efforts and any fiscal resources likely necessary to complete these efforts  For example, in 2014 we recommended the Coast Guard develop a 20-year fleet modernization plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the current level of service and the fiscal resources needed to acquire them  Without these efforts, the Coast Guard will continue, as it has in recent years, to plan its future acquisitions through the annual budgeting process, an approach that has led to delayed and reduced capabilities  In 2016, the Coast Guard revised its 2005 Mission Needs Statement, which provides a basic foundation for long-term investment planning that is to serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of various fleet mixes, and inform the Coast Guard’s CIP  However, the 2016 Mission Needs Statement did not identify specific assets the Coast Guard needs to achieve its missions, nor did it update the annual hours it needs from each asset class to satisfactorily complete its missions  The Coast Guard has stated it is developing a 20-year Long-term Major Acquisition Plan, but it has not stated when the plan will be completed or what will be included in this plan, such as potential trade-offs that could be made across the Coast Guard’s portfolio of acquisitions to better meet mission needs within realistic funding levels  A long-term plan with a tradeoff analysis would facilitate a full understanding of the affordability challenges facing the Coast Guard while it builds the Offshore Patrol Cutter  DHS concurred with our 2014 recommendation, but it is unclear when the Coast Guard plans to complete the 20-year plan  Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and members of the sub- committee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time  If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, please contact Nathan Anderson at (202) 512-3841 or andersonn@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Other individuals making key contributions to this work, and the underlying reports on which it is based, include Dawn Hoff (Assistant Director); Andrew Curry (Analyst-in-Charge); Chuck Bausell; David Bieler; Richard Cederholm; John Crawford; Timothy J  DiNapoli; Michele Fejfar; Laurier R  Fish; Peter Haderlein; Eric Hauswirth; Laura Jezewski; Tracey King; Benjamin Licht; Marie A  Mak; Gary Malavenda; Diana Moldafsky; Heidi Nielson; Meg Ullengren; and Kayli Westling  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 
Report 2: , allowing users to search PA projects by project number), back to the high-level requirements (e g , storing data and information provided by the applicant) identified in the FAC-Trax functional requirements document and performance work statement  Officials did not track system enhancements back to high-level requirements because they did not have a complete understanding of basic user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC- Trax effort, according to the PA program manager  A PA official also said the change control process was a way to identify the basic capabilities FAC-Trax needed to have and that tracking enhancements back to high- level requirements could have made the change control process more difficult to manage, and reduced user participation if, for example, users needed to understand how their change requests related to high-level requirements  However, program officials could have tracked enhancements back to high-level requirements themselves using the change control process without putting any additional burden on users  Despite not having a complete understanding of user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC-Trax effort, analyzing whether users’ change requests satisfy higher-level requirements identified in key design and planning documents would have provided officials with a basis for more detailed and precise requirements throughout project development and helped them better manage the project, according to IT management controls  Further, according to the PMBOK® Guide, tracking or measuring system capabilities against approved requirements is a key process for managing a project’s scope, measuring project completion, and ensuring the project meets user needs and expectations  Program officials acknowledged the importance of tracking system enhancements back to documented system requirements  Ensuring that FAC-Trax meets user needs and expectations is especially important because the information system is key to the success of the new delivery model, according to PA officials  By analyzing progress made on documented, high-level requirements, a step that reflects a key IT management control for requirements development, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax will provide functionality that meets user needs and expectations  PA program officials did not fully satisfy either of the two practices in the systems testing and integration control area, according to our assessment  Key systems testing and integration practices are (1) developing test plans and test cases, which include a description of the overall approach for system testing, the set of tasks necessary to prepare for and perform testing, the roles and responsibilities for individuals or groups responsible for testing, and criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing; and (2) developing a systems integration plan to identify all systems to be integrated, describe how integration problems are to be documented and resolved, define roles and responsibilities of all relevant participants, and establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step  In regards to the first practice, PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a test plan that identifies the method and strategy to perform testing, including the necessary tasks, such as responding to user feedback and testing errors, and incorporating necessary resolutions into future work, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing  However, program officials have not developed system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax, which would align with the practice described above of using criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing  A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development  PA program officials said they did not establish a definition of done because officials initially managing the FAC-Trax effort lacked familiarity with system development in the Agile environment  Officials acknowledged the importance of establishing a definition of done and said they are planning to develop one, but have not identified how or when to incorporate it into the development process  According to the TechFAR—the government’s handbook for procuring digital services using Agile processes—the government and vendor should establish this definition after contract award at the beginning of each cycle of software development  By establishing criteria, such as a definition of done, to evaluate the system—a step that reflects a key IT management control for system testing and is an effective practice for applying Agile to software development—the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC- Trax is usable and responsive to specified requirements  In regards to the second practice, PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identified the potential for integration of FAC-Trax with four FEMA systems, including EMMIE  In addition, program officials included a description of how staff should document integration problems and the resolution of problems in FAC- Trax development and test plans  However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems  PA officials said that system integration planning for FAC-Trax is in the early stages, but acknowledged the importance of these elements of system integration planning  Officials plan to define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities and develop the sequence and schedule for every integration step as they add new systems to the FAC-Trax development plan and obtain funding needed for their integration  Nonetheless, FEMA has used FAC-Trax for selected PA disasters since October 2016 and plans to use FAC-Trax for all future disasters  According to IT management controls, agencies should establish the systems integration plan early in the project and revise it to reflect evolving and emerging user needs  By ensuring that the FAC- Trax systems integration plan defines the roles and responsibilities of relevant participants for all integration relationships and establishes a sequence and schedule for every integration step, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax functions properly with other systems and meets user needs  FEMA’s new delivery model enhances participation of hazard mitigation staff with the goal of identifying opportunities for mitigation earlier in the PA preaward process, according to PA officials  Two key changes related to hazard mitigation under the new model include (1) an emphasis on engaging with hazard mitigation specialists at the JFO earlier in the PA process and involving them in specific PA preaward activities and (2) the establishment of the PA program’s hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC  For example, position guides direct program delivery managers to coordinate with FIMA’s hazard mitigation specialists prior to recovery scoping meetings, and site inspectors to coordinate with hazard mitigation specialists prior to site inspections to discuss a PA grant applicant’s damages and any potential mitigation opportunities  PA program officials also developed guidance for conducting the exploratory call and the recovery scoping meeting with applicants, which include questions for PA staff to ask on the applicant’s interest in or plans for incorporating hazard mitigation into potential projects  In addition, a new hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC is responsible for reviewing PA projects for hazard mitigation opportunities and serving as a mitigation subject matter expert for the PA program  According to data provided by FEMA, PA grant applicants incorporated hazard mitigation into approximately 18 percent of permanent work projects for all disasters nationwide from 2012 to 2015  During test implementation of the new delivery model, state, PA, and FIMA officials all reported an increase in the number of hazard mitigation activities on PA permanent work projects  For example, state officials who participated in the second new model test in Oregon said that effective communication and coordination between PA and hazard mitigation staff resulted in applicants incorporating hazard mitigation into over 60 percent of permanent work projects  Furthermore, PA officials reported an increase in hazard mitigation during the third test implementation of the new model in Georgia following Hurricane Matthew, where approximately 16 percent of permanent work projects included mitigation, as of June 2017  This represents an increase compared to the PA program’s estimate for the proportion of projects that incorporate hazard mitigation among previous PA hurricane disasters in Georgia, which was about 3 percent, according to PA officials  While PA officials are trying to increase hazard mitigation through the new delivery model, not all disasters present the same number of opportunities to incorporate hazard mitigation  First, the PA program only incorporates hazard mitigation measures for permanent work projects, such as repairs to roads, bridges, and buildings  For example, as of June 2017, approximately 60 percent of the projects FEMA funded in Georgia for the third test implementation after Hurricane Matthew were for emergency work, which is not eligible for hazard mitigation measures  Second, the PA program only funds mitigation measures that officials determine to be cost-effective  In addition, we have previously reported on other factors that affect whether applicants incorporate hazard mitigation into PA projects, such as their capacity to manage and ability to fund hazard mitigation projects  National Planning for Hazard Mitigation In our 2015 report on disaster resilience following Hurricane Sandy, we noted that disaster affected areas have different threats and vulnerabilities, and local stakeholders make the ultimate determination whether or not to incorporate hazard mitigation into a project  Further, without a strategic approach to making disaster resilience investments, the federal government and its nonfederal partners may be unable to fully capitalize on opportunities for mitigation on the greatest known threats and hazards  We recommended that the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group develop an investment strategy to help ensure that federal funds expended to enhance disaster resilience achieve the goal of reducing the nation’s fiscal exposure because of climate change and the rise in the number of federal major disaster declarations as effectively and efficiently as possible  In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plans to issue a final National Mitigation Investment Strategy in 2018  The goals of this strategy include increasing the effectiveness of investments in reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience, and improving coordination of disaster risk management among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private entities  Although the new model establishes hazard mitigation activities for PA and FIMA staff in the preaward process, it does not standardize and prioritize hazard mitigation planning at JFOs in the way FEMA has done with prior PA program policy  Specifically, FEMA’s 2007 PA program policy standardized planning for hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts by stating that agency and state officials should issue a memorandum of understanding (MOU) early in the disaster, outlining how PA hazard mitigation will be addressed for the disaster, including what mitigation measures will be emphasized, and identifying applicable codes and standards, and any potential integration with other mitigation grant programs  However, PA program officials did not include guidance that standardizes planning for hazard mitigation, such as encouraging the use of an MOU, in FEMA’s 2010 PA program policy, the most recent update to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide in April 2017, or the New Delivery Model Operations Manual  As a result, FIMA officials said FEMA and state officials do not consistently issue MOUs that outline how FEMA and the state plan to promote PA hazard mitigation during the recovery effort, explaining that the use of the MOU is based on the preferences and priorities of the FEMA officials involved  When not issuing an MOU, FIMA hazard mitigation staff and PA officials at the JFO meet to determine the extent which hazard mitigation staff interact directly with applicants regarding PA hazard mitigation during the recovery process, according to a FIMA official  Having a consistent approach to planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation across all disasters is important for FEMA, given that FEMA experienced challenges consistently prioritizing and integrating hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts, according to GAO and others  For example, in our 2015 report on resilience in the Hurricane Sandy recovery, we found that state and local officials experienced challenges maximizing disaster resilience in the recovery effort because PA officials did not consistently prioritize hazard mitigation during project development  According to FEMA’s National Mitigation Framework, planning is vital for mitigation efforts during disaster recovery, and federal, state, and local officials should establish procedures that emphasize a coordinated delivery of mitigation activities and capitalize on opportunities to reduce future disaster losses  Similarly, the Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plan, which supports FEMA’s National Disaster Recovery Framework, identifies planning as a key task for identifying mitigation opportunities and integrating risk reduction considerations into decisions and investments during the recovery process  FIMA officials agreed that including the development of a formal plan, such as the historical 2007 PA program policy regarding the use of MOUs, for PA hazard mitigation in operations guidance would help program officials plan for and prioritize hazard mitigation  They noted that FIMA’s hazard mitigation field operations guide includes procedures for implementing proposed MOUs to achieve mitigation goals  PA program officials said that, in light of changes to the PA process under the new model and subsequent updates to program policies, the MOU policy from the 2007 PA program policy was outdated  But officials agreed that planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation at the operational level is important and said they were examining additional ways to incorporate these activities early in the PA process  As FEMA continues to implement the new model, establishing procedures to standardize hazard mitigation planning for each disaster, as it did through prior policy, could improve the prioritization of hazard mitigation in PA recovery efforts and increase the effectiveness of mitigation for reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience  PA program officials developed performance objectives and measures for hazard mitigation in the new delivery model, but could add measures to better align performance assessment for the PA program with FEMA’s broader strategic goals for hazard mitigation  In its strategic plan for 2014–2018, FEMA established an agency-wide goal to increase the percentage of FEMA-funded disaster projects, such as those under the PA program, that provide mitigation above local, state, and federal building code requirements by 5 percentage points by the end of fiscal year 2018  For example, local building codes may require measures for new construction to mitigate against future damage  To align with FEMA’s strategic goal, PA officials would also need to measure the number of PA projects that included mitigation measures that bring any repaired infrastructure to a level above applicable building codes  However, under the new model, FEMA officials developed performance objectives (and associated measures) to increase the number of projects that include hazard mitigation by 5 percent, and increase the total dollars spent on hazard mitigation by 2 percent  While these measures could help to incentivize mitigation, they are not tied to building codes and do not include specific information that FEMA could use to continually assess the PA program’s contributions to meeting the agency’s strategic goal  According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, agency management should design control activities, such as establishing and reviewing performance measures, to achieve the agency’s objectives  In addition, our work on leading public sector organizations has found that such organizations assess the extent to which their programs and activities contribute to meeting their mission and desired outcomes, and strive to establish clear hierarchies of performance goals and measures  A clear connection between performance measures and program offices helps to both reinforce accountability and ensure that, in their day-to-day activities, managers keep in mind the outcomes their organization is striving to achieve  FEMA’s ability to evaluate and report on PA hazard mitigation data is constrained, but officials are addressing this challenge through the development of data reporting and analytics capabilities for the PA program’s new information system, according to PA officials  PA program officials developed measures they could use to evaluate the new model during test implementation and compare new model performance to the legacy PA process, and agreed that aligning PA program hazard mitigation goals with FEMA’s agency-wide strategic goals would be helpful  As FEMA continues to develop and implement the new model, developing performance measures and objectives to better inform and support the agency’s broader strategic goals could help to ensure that FEMA capitalizes on hazard mitigation opportunities in PA recovery efforts  FEMA’s Public Assistance grant program is a complicated, multi-billion dollar program that is critical to helping state and local communities rebuild and recover after a major disaster  In recent years, FEMA has undertaken a major reengineering effort to make the PA preaward process simpler and more efficient for applicants and to address challenges encountered during recovery from past disasters  FEMA’s new delivery model represents a significant opportunity to strengthen the PA program and address these past challenges, and growing pains are to be expected when implementing any large reengineering effort  Further, FEMA officials work to implement these changes while supporting response and recovery following disasters, including the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and widespread damages from Hurricanes Irma and Maria in September 2017  As such, it is critical that feedback obtained and lessons learned while testing the new model inform decisions and actions as FEMA proceeds with full implementation for all disasters, including the complex recovery efforts in the states and territories affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria  FEMA has redesigned the PA delivery model to address various challenges related to workforce management, information sharing with state and local grantees, and incorporating hazard mitigation into PA projects  FEMA has developed new workforce processes, training, and positions to address past challenges, but completing a workforce assessment that identifies the number of staff needed will inform workforce management and resource allocation decisions to help FEMA ensure a more successful implementation  This is particularly important as FEMA is using the new model for the long-term recovery from the 2017 hurricanes, and FEMA faces capacity challenges as its workforce is stretched thin  Further, FEMA’s new FAC-Trax information sharing system provides FEMA and state and local applicants and grantees with better capabilities to address past challenges in managing and tracking PA projects  In developing FAC-Trax, FEMA implemented many of the key IT management controls that can help ensure that new IT systems are implemented effectively  However, additional steps are needed to fully satisfy the areas of requirements development and systems testing and integration  Finally, FEMA has taken some actions to better promote hazard mitigation as part of its new PA model  However, more consistent planning for hazard mitigation following a PA disaster and developing specific performance measures and objectives that better align with and support the agency’s broader strategic goals related to hazard mitigation could help to ensure that mitigation is incorporated into recovery efforts, which presents an opportunity to encourage disaster resilience and reduce federal fiscal exposure from recurring catastrophic natural disasters  We are making the following five recommendations to FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for Recovery: The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the appropriate number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and in FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre to implement the new delivery model nationwide  (Recommendation 1) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to the system’s functional and operational requirements to more fully satisfy requirements development controls and ensure that the new information system provides capabilities that meets users’ needs and expectations  (Recommendation 2) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish system testing criteria, such as a “definition of done,” to assess FAC- Trax as it is developed; define the roles and responsibilities of all participants; and develop the sequence and schedule for integration of other systems with FAC-Trax to more fully satisfy systems testing and integration controls  (Recommendation 3) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the joint field offices, for example, by requiring FEMA and state officials to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining how they will prioritize and address hazard mitigation following a disaster as it did through prior policy  (Recommendation 4) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model to better align with FEMA’s strategic goal for hazard mitigation in the recovery process  (Recommendation 5) We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FEMA for review and comment  DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III  In its comments, DHS concurred with our recommendations and described actions planned to address them  FEMA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  With regard to our first recommendation, that FEMA complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre, DHS stated that PA, in coordination with the Field Operations Directorate and FIMA, will continue to refine and evaluate staffing needs and update the cadre force structures under the new delivery model  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 28, 2019  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our second recommendation, that FEMA establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to ensure the new information system meets users’ needs, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax Requirements Management Plan and the FAC-Trax Release Plan to ensure the tracking and traceability of FAC-Trax functional and operational requirements  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by January 31, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our third recommendation, that FEMA establish systems testing criteria to assess the development of FAC-Trax; and define the roles and responsibilities, and sequence and schedule for system integration, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax System Integration Plan to include integration with the Deployment Tracking System, Enterprise Data Warehouse, Preliminary Damage Assessment interface, and State Grants Management system interface  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our fourth recommendation, that FEMA implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the JFO, DHS stated that PA will update current process documents or develop new documents to better incorporate mitigation into the operational planning phase of the new delivery model  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by July 31, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our fifth recommendation, that PA coordinate with FIMA to develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model that better align with FEMA’s strategic goals for hazard mitigation in the recovery process, DHS stated that PA will reconvene the PA-Mitigation working group to develop and refine PA related hazard mitigation performance measures  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional committees  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or CurrieC@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Appendix II: Assessment of Information Technology Management Controls for the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax) Table 2 shows details on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) program office’s implementation of key practices across four information technology (IT) management control areas for its new information system, the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax)  PA developed FAC-Trax as a web-based project tracking and case management system to supplement the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment (EMMIE) and help resolve long-standing information sharing challenges  To determine the extent to which the FAC-Trax program office implemented IT management controls, we reviewed documentation from the FAC-Trax program and compared it to key management best practices, including the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition and Development, the Project Management Institute’s Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Standard for Software and System Test Documentation  We assessed the program as having fully implemented a practice if the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the practice; partially implemented if the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the practice; and not implemented if the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the practice  Table 2  Public Assistance (PA) Program Office’s Implementation of Key Information Technology Management Controls for FAC-Trax PA program officials developed an acquisition plan for FAC-Trax identifying the capabilities the system is intended to deliver, the acquisition approach, and acquisition objectives  Additionally, program officials developed a capability development plan outlining a strategy for the program to obtain approval to acquire FAC-Trax  Lastly, program officials developed a systems engineering plan describing the program’s scope and its framework for using an Agile development approach, as well as a deployment, support, and maintenance plan for FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s cost parameters and a life-cycle cost estimate for the system  As of May 2017, the life- cycle cost estimate for FAC-Trax through fiscal year (FY) 2023 is approximately $19 3 million  PA program officials updated the life-cycle cost estimate for FYs 2016 and 2017 after price negotiations with the FAC-Trax contractor, and will continue to update the estimate as annual budgets are approved, according to the Integrated Logistic Support Plan  The contracting officer’s representative for FAC-Trax performs a cost review at the end of each month, according to program officials  Furthermore, the contractor’s weekly status report includes information on the number of hours worked and the percent of contract value spent  Program officials also review program costs with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s schedule parameters, as well as an integrated master schedule for the system  The integrated master schedule identifies tasks, major milestones, and task dependencies  The PA program manager reviews and updates the integrated master schedule on a weekly basis  Program officials also review FAC-Trax’s schedule with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials identified the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the program in FAC-Trax contract documentation and the capability development plan  Specifically, program officials included an attachment to the FAC-Trax contract listing the required labor categories and corresponding functional position descriptions  Program officials also described the role, position type, minimum grade, and minimum certification for required personnel resources for the acquisition, development, and implementation of FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed, reviewed, and maintained project planning documents and obtained commitment from relevant stakeholders  For example, program officials reviewed and updated the integrated master schedule and costs on a weekly and monthly basis, respectively  Further, program officials reviewed the status of project elements, such as the schedule, quality and technical issues, stakeholders, staffing, cost, and risks, with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials also established tactical, functional, and stakeholder groups, as well as an Integrated Product Team to support and oversee the development of FAC-Trax  FEMA’s Recovery Technology Programs Division (RTPD) has a division-level risk management plan that serves as guidance for all Recovery systems, including FAC- Trax  Program officials identified key risks that could negatively affect FAC-Trax work efforts in RTPD’s “risk register”—an online site used to track risks, issues, and mitigating actions for the division and each program office  Program officials also identified five technical, cost, and schedule risks in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  Program officials included one of these risks in the risk register, while the remaining four were managed outside of the register  As of May 2017, program officials had identified 13 risks in its risk register—four open and nine closed  The four open risks were (1) limited subject matter expert engagement during requirements development, (2) vacancies in program management office support positions, (3) unresolved service level agreement support and funding issues, and (4) the loss of the authority to operate due to a Trusted Internet Connection that is not compliant with Department of Homeland Security security policy  Program officials evaluated and categorized the identified risks based on the probability of occurrence and scope, schedule, and cost impacts  These four points of measurement are used to calculate an overall risk score  The risk score helps program officials determine a risk’s risk rating—low, medium, or high  For example, program officials reported that two of its open risks have a “medium” risk rating—meaning the risk has the potential to slightly impact project cost, schedule, or performance  In addition, program officials detailed the risk category, probability, and impact for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  Program officials developed risk mitigation and contingency plans for each risk in the risk register  For example, program officials planned to mitigate the open risk concerning subject matter expert engagement, by identifying and engaging with appropriate subject matter experts through requirements development workshops scheduled in advance of the sprint they are to support, and monitoring the development of user stories to identify any issues that may cause delays  In addition, program officials described the risk management plan and responsible officials for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  PA program officials review and update program risks during a monthly program meeting  Program officials also review program risks with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  Furthermore, the FAC-Trax contractor provides a weekly status update which includes a section on identified risks  Program officials established re-evaluation dates and recorded updates, including any actions taken, for each risk in the risk register  In addition, program officials were able to provide updates on the four risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan and managed outside of the register  According to PA officials, these risks were addressed and closed by the approval of program planning documents, such as the mission needs statement, concept of operations, and operational requirements document, following the solutions engineering review, which demonstrates the readiness of the program to proceed with the procurement, in September 2016  Program officials established a requirements management plan outlining how it captures, assesses, and plans for FAC-Trax enhancements, and established a change control process to review, prioritize, and verify user requests for changes to the system and feedback  As of May 2017, the PA program office received 734 change requests related to FAC-Trax, of which program officials completed 420 changes and planned to address an additional 277 entries  PA program officials also facilitated workshops to gather requirements for specific user groups and obtained additional requirements for FAC-Trax through customer feedback on a temporary technology tool— an Access database referred to as the Public Assistance Recovery Information System—used to support an early stage of the new model implementation  Further, program officials developed a functional requirements document outlining the high-level functional and operational requirements for FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed a concept of operations for FAC-Trax detailing operating concepts and scenarios for each phase of the PA preaward process  Program officials also detailed the workflow, phases, business functions, and data inputs and outputs for the re-engineered PA process in FAC-Trax’s functional requirements document  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to describe the process, tasks, and data inputs and outputs for specific system capabilities  As part of the change control process, PA program officials meet three times a week to discuss and prioritize change requests  Specifically, program officials review submissions to the change control form to ensure completeness, validate impacts and root cause, and research details for incoming requests  PA program officials also follow up with users to understand and verify requirements  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to capture acceptance criteria for specific requirements  However, PA program officials do not track system enhancements back to the high-level requirements identified in FAC-Trax’s operational and functional requirements documentation and performance work statement  PA program officials identified system requirements and constraints in the FAC-Trax concept of operations and functional and operational requirements documents  Further, through its change control process, program officials collect suggestions, issues, and feedback on FAC-Trax and system enhancements from stakeholders, identify risks for change requests, and balance prioritized requirements and estimated level of efforts with projected costs prior to each sprint  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to analyze and document the urgency and need for specific requirements  PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a testing and evaluation plan for the system, developed acceptance criteria for user stories, and obtained feedback from users during and after testing  The testing process concludes with user acceptance testing (UAT)  If a change request fails during UAT or a new requirement is discovered during development, the PA program will capture the failed request or new requirement in the product backlog for implementation in a future product release  Key practices Systems testing and integration Developing test plans and test cases PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor tested and evaluated the system during development  The FAC-Trax test plan identifies the method and strategy to perform the testing, including the necessary tasks, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing  However, program officials did not develop system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax  A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development  PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identifies potential integration of FAC-Trax and four FEMA systems, including the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment  Specifically, the plan includes data requirements and standards; descriptions of the four systems FEMA plans to integrate with FAC-Trax and the proposed relationship for each connection; and security and access management requirements  In addition, program officials included a description of how integration problems are to be documented and resolved in FAC-Trax development and test plans  However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems  ● Fully implemented: The agency provided evidence that it fully addressed this practice  ◐ Partially implemented: The agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of this practice  ◌ Not implemented: The agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed this practice  In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant Director), Amanda R  Parker (Analyst-in-Charge), Mathew Bader, Allison Bawden, Anthony Bova, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Rianna Jansen, Justin Jaynes, Tracey King, Matthew T  Lowney, Heidi Nielson, Claire Peachey, Brenda Rabinowitz, Ryan Siegel, Martin Skorczynski, Niti Tandon, Walter K  Vance, James T  Williams, and Eric Winter made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings. These include the school meals programs—the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program—as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The most recent child nutrition reauthorization, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred debate during the law's implementation, particularly in regard to updated nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition programs in the 114th Congress, while not completed, considered several related issues and prompted further discussion about the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the 115th Congress. Current issues discussed in this report include the following: Nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. The HHFKA required USDA to update the nutrition standards for school meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk. Offerings in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). There have been debates recently over whether the FFVP should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute permits only fresh offerings. "Buy American" requirements for school meals. The school meals programs' authorizing laws require schools to source foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to "enforce full compliance" with the Buy American requirements and report to Congress within 180 days of enactment. Congregate feeding in summer meals. Under current law, children must consume summer meals on-site. This is known as the "congregate feeding" requirement. Starting in 2010, Congress funded demonstration projects, including the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to continue or expand the program. Implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). The HHFKA created CEP, an option for qualifying schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data. Unpaid meal costs and "lunch shaming." The issue of students not paying for meals and schools' handling of these situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as "lunch shaming" practices, including throwing away a student's selected hot meal and providing a cold meal alternative when a student does not pay. Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization. Paid lunch pricing. One result of new requirements in the HHFKA was price increases for paid (full price) lunches in many schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these "paid lunch equity" requirements in recent years.

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



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

Report 1: The term child nutrition programs refers to several U S  Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings  The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools  Also operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP  Other child nutrition programs include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the summer months  The child nutrition programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P L  111-296 )  On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or extended by the HHFKA expired  However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual appropriations acts  In the 114 th Congress, lawmakers began but did not complete child nutrition reauthorization, which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple permanent statutes—the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935  Both committees of jurisdiction—the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation ( S  3136 and H R  5003 , respectively)  This legislation died at the end of the 114 th Congress, as is the case for any bill that has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress  There were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the 115 th Congress; however, 2018 farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition programs  The implementation of the HHFKA, child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the 114 th Congress, and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking opportunities  These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced  Other issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision, an option to provide free meals to all students in certain schools  Stakeholders in these issues commonly include school food authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations, among others  This report provides an overview of these and other current issues in the child nutrition programs  It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses   References to CRS reports with more detailed information or analysis on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following: For an overview of the structure and functions of the child nutrition programs, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer   For more information on the child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the 114 th Congress, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview   For a summary of the HHFKA, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P L  111-296   School meals must meet certain requirements to be eligible for federal reimbursement, including nutritional requirements  These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of the HHFKA, which required USDA to update the standards for school meals and create new nutrition standards for "competitive" foods (e g , foods sold in vending machines, a la carte lines, and snack bars) within a specified timeframe  Specifically, the law required USDA to issue proposed regulations for competitive foods nutrition standards within one year after enactment and for school meals nutrition standards within 18 months after enactment  The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance  The nutrition standards in the HHFKA were championed by a variety of organizations and stakeholders, including nutrition and public health advocacy organizations, food and beverage companies, school nutrition officials, retired military leaders, and then-First Lady Michelle Obama  The precise nutritional requirements were largely written in the subsequent regulations, not the HHFKA  USDA-FNS published the final rule for school meals in January 2012 and the final rule for competitive foods in July 2016  As required by law, the nutrition standards were based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies)  For school meals, the updated standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and breakfasts  They also instituted limits on calories, sodium, whole grains, and proteins in meals and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties  Other requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal  Similarly, the nutrition standards for competitive foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other requirements  The standards applied only to non-meal foods and beverages sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for fundraisers  The meal standards began phasing in during school year (SY) 2012-2013, and the competitive foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015  However, sodium limits and certain whole grain requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years  Some schools experienced challenges implementing the changes, reporting difficulty obtaining whole grain and low-sodium products, issues with student acceptance of foods, reduced participation, increased costs, and increased food waste  These accounts were shared in news stories and by the School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization representing school nutrition professionals  Studies by the U S  Government Accountability Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation  SNA advocated for certain changes to the standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were necessary for children's health and that implementation challenges were easing with time  In January 2014, USDA removed weekly limits on grains and protein  Then, in the FY2015, FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk, whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018  USDA implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule  In December 2018, USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting in SY2019-2020  Specifically, the rule allows all SFAs to offer flavored, low-fat (1%) milk as part of school meals and as beverages sold in schools, and requires unflavored milk to be offered alongside flavored milk in school meals; requires SFAs to adhere to a 50% whole grain-rich requirement (the original regulations required 100% whole grain-rich starting in SY2014-2015); states may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offer nonwhole grain-rich products; and maintains Target 1 sodium limits from SY2019-2020 through SY2023-2024, implements Target 2 limits starting in SY2024-2025 and thereafter, and eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target)  Table 2 provides a timeline from the 2012 final rule to the 2018 final rule, showing the ways in which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time  Apart from these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact  The changes to the milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards for competitive foods have not been changed substantially  Legislative proposals related to the nutrition standards were considered in the 115 th Congress  For example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H R  2 ) would have required USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods  According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those related to milk, "(1) are based on research based on school-age children; (2) do not add costs in addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3) maintain healthy meals for students " This provision was not included in the enacted bill  Child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the House and Senate during the 114 th Congress also would have altered the nutrition standards  The House committee's proposal ( H R  5003 ) would have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and revise them as necessary, following certain criteria  In addition, under the proposal, fundraisers by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold a la carte  The Senate committee's proposal ( S  3136 ) would have required USDA to revise the whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment  Although not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House, USDA, and the School Nutrition Association resulted in an agreement that these revisions, if enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the Target 2 sodium requirement for two years  Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh  According to USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods "in their natural state and without additives " In recent years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh products  Stakeholders on both sides include agricultural producers and processors  The 2014 farm bill (Section 4214 of P L  113-79 ) funded a pilot project that incorporated canned, dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states  USDA selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables  According to the final (2017) evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an average week of the demonstration  Schools most often introduced dried and canned fruits, which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP  However, there was no significant impact on students' vegetable consumption, while fruit consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity of fruit when it was dried or canned)  There was also no significant impact on student participation  Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parents' responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally favored the changes  Legislative proposals to change FFVP offerings on a more permanent basis have also been considered  For example, in the 115 th Congress, the House version of H R  2 would have allowed CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed "fresh" from the program name  This provision was not included in the enacted bill  In the 114 th Congress, child nutrition reauthorization legislation in the House ( H R  5003 ) included a similar proposal to allow participating schools to serve "all forms" of fruits and vegetables as well as tree nuts  The Senate committee's proposal ( S  3136 ) would have provided temporary hardship exemptions for schools with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP  Such schools would have to transition to 100% fresh products over time  Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically  These requirements are outlined in the school meals programs' authorizing laws and clarified in USDA guidance  Under the Buy American requirements, schools participating in the NSLP and/or SBP in the 48 contiguous states must purchase "domestic commodities or products … to the maximum extent practicable " Statute defines "domestic commodities or products" as those that are both produced and processed substantially in the United States  Accompanying conference report language elaborated that "processed substantially" means the product is processed in the United States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included in USDA guidance (discussed below)  USDA regulations essentially restate the statutory requirement  USDA has issued guidance on how SFAs and state agencies should implement the Buy American requirements  The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June 2017 memorandum  According to USDA-FNS guidance, the Buy American requirements apply to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not they are federal funds (children's paid lunch fees, for example, also go into the nonprofit school food service account)  The guidance encourages SFAs to integrate Buy American into their procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents  The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American requirements on a limited basis when a product "is not produced or manufactured in the U S  in sufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory quality" or when "competitive bids reveal the costs of a U S  product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product " SFAs must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make  SFAs may also request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria  State agencies must review SFAs' compliance with the Buy American requirements, including any exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary  The enacted 2018 farm bill (Section 4207 of P L  115-334 ) included a provision requiring USDA to "enforce full compliance" with the Buy American requirements and "ensure that States and school food authorities fully understand their responsibilities" within 180 days of enactment  In addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on actions taken and plans to comply with the provision  The provision clarifies the definition of domestic products for the purposes of USDA's enforcement, stating that domestic products are those that are "processed in the United States and substantially contain … meats, vegetables, fruits, and other agricultural commodities" produced in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or "fish harvested" in the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U S -flagged vessel  The provision in the enacted bill amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill  Proponents of stricter requirements have cited economic and food safety reasons for domestic sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China  Others have argued for maintaining or increasing schools' discretion in food procurement, arguing that high-quality domestic options are not always available or cost-effective  Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in "congregate" or group settings where children come to eat while supervised  These meals are provided through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch Program's Summer Seamless Option (SSO)  In recent years, policymakers have weighed different proposals and tested alternatives to congregate meals in SFSP and SSO  Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals  According to a May 2018 study by the U S  Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children in rural areas was "very" or "extremely" challenging in SFSP  The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P L  111-80 ) provided $85 million in discretionary funding for "demonstration projects to develop and test methods of providing access to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months " One of these is the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations  The project provides electronic food benefits to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals  Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)  Participants in jurisdictions providing benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers  An evaluation of Summer EBT was conducted from FY2011 through FY2013  The study, which used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food security among participants (9 5% of control group children experienced very low food security compared to 6 4% in the Summer EBT group)  It also showed improvements in children's consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains  Both the WIC and SNAP models showed increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model  Congress has provided subsequent funding for Summer EBT projects (see Table 3 )  Most recently, the third FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P L  116-6 ) provided $28 million for the Summer EBT demonstration  Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations  For summer 2018, USDA also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas  Many of these jurisdictions participated in Summer EBT in previous summers as well  In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of 2019 through 2021  There were proposals in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses to expand Summer EBT  For example, the Senate committee's child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114 th Congress ( S  3136 ) would have allowed a portion of SFSP's mandatory funding to cover Summer EBT and authorized up to $50 million in discretionary funding for the program  In addition, in its FY2017 budget proposal, the Obama Administration recommended expansion of Summer EBT nationwide with a phase-in over 10 years  Freestanding bills in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses had similar objectives  Funding from the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P L  111-80 ) was also used for other demonstration projects  One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states  It included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days, (2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and holidays  Evaluations of eSFSP were published from 2011 to 2014  Summer meal participation rates rose during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives  In addition, children in the meal delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall (this was not measured for the other initiatives)  However, the results from these evaluations should be interpreted with caution due to a small sample size, the lack of a comparison group, and potential confounding factors  Another demonstration project, also operating under authority provided by the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of this report)  Exempted sites must continue to serve children in congregate settings on days when heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e g , a take-home form) on days of excessive heat  USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather conditions  This demonstration has not been evaluated  There were other proposals and hearings related to congregate feeding in SFSP in recent years  For example, in the 114 th Congress, committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the Senate and the House ( S  3136 and H R  5003 , respectively) would have enabled some rural meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite  Specifically, both proposals would have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas ( H R  5003 to a more limited extent than S  3136 ) and (2) in nonrural areas in which more than 80% of students are certified as eligible for free or reduced-price meals  The bills would have also permitted congregate feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such as extreme weather or public safety concerns  The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals (lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches  CEP became available to schools nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then  As of SY2016-2017, more than 20,700 schools participated in CEP, according to data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a nonprofit advocacy organization  This is roughly 22% of NSLP schools  Several groups have expressed support for CEP during its implementation, arguing that the provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-price meals, and reduces schools' administrative costs  Others have sought to change the option  For example, in the 114 th Congress, the House's committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization bill ( H R  5003 ) would have restricted schools' eligibility for CEP, which the committee majority argued was "to better target resources to those students in need, while also ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance " One secondary effect of CEP is that it has created data issues for other nonnutrition federal and state programs  Many programs, most notably the federal Title I-A program (the primary source of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations  These data come from school meal applications, which are no longer collected under CEP's automatic eligibility determination process  For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A and the School Meals' Community Eligibility Provision   Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price meals  In recent years, the issue of students owing and not paying their meal costs, and schools' responses to such situations, has received increased attention  In many cases, schools serve students a regular meal, charging the unpaid meal cost and creating a debt that they may try to collect later from the family  In other cases, schools respond with what some have called "lunch shaming" practices—most commonly, taking or throwing away a student's selected hot foods and providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e g , a stamp or sticker)  Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices (available data are discussed in the text box below)  Many school districts report that unpaid meal costs create a financial burden on their meal programs (see text box below for more detail)  In addition to federal funds, student payments for full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs  Schools have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations  Also, according to federal regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes "bad debt" and the school or school district must use other nonfederal funding sources to cover the costs  Starting in 2010, Congress and USDA have taken actions to address the issue of unpaid meal costs  Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine states' and school districts' policies and practices regarding unpaid meal charges  As part of the review, the law required USDA to "prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing national standards for meal charges and the provision of alternate meals" and, if applicable, make recommendations related to the implementation of the standards  The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based on the findings from the report  USDA's subsequent Report to Congress in June 2016 ultimately did not recommend national standards, but instead recommended "clarifying and updating policy guidance on specific national policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best practices to support decision making by States and localities " USDA-FNS followed up with a memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal charge policy, which was to include instructions on how to address situations in which a child does not pay for a meal  USDA-FNS also provided clarification through webinars, other memoranda, and a best practice guide  In the Report to Congress, USDA stated that its recommendation was based on findings from a study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on "Unpaid Meal Charges" published by USDA-FNS in October 2014  The findings from both the study and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level  The responses to the RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e g , some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement  In the RFI comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards  The topics of lunch shaming and unpaid meal costs also surfaced in the 115 th Congress  For example, a provision in the FY2018 appropriations law stated that funds appropriated in the law could not be used in ways that result in discrimination against children eligible for free or reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-price meals)  Legislative proposals in the 115 th Congress included the Anti-Lunch Shaming Act of 2017 ( H R  2401 / S  1064 ), which sought to establish national standards for how schools treat children unable to pay for a meal  Unpaid meal costs and lunch shaming have also been active topics at the state level  In recent years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues  For example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular (reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset from the state for debts exceeding $500  The HHFKA created new requirements related to schools' pricing of paid lunches (sometimes referred to as "paid lunch equity" requirements)  Specifically, the law required all NSLP-participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually increase prices based on a formula  The law also gave SFAs the option to meet the requirements with specified nonfederal funding sources instead of raising prices  According to the Senate committee report on the HHFKA, the requirements were intended "to ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal funds " Prior to the paid lunch equity requirements, a USDA study found that federal subsidies for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs, likely including paid lunches  This can occur because federal reimbursements for free, reduced-price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run "nonprofit school food service account" (NSFSA)  Some observers argue, however, that raising prices may reduce participation in paid lunches  Under the paid lunch equity formula, the price per paid lunch must eventually match or exceed the difference between the federal reimbursements for free and paid lunches  If this is not the case, schools must increase prices over time until they make up the difference  For example, the federal reimbursement was $3 37 for free lunches and $0 37 for paid lunches SY2018-2019 for some schools  Under the requirements, if schools were not charging at least $3 00 per paid lunch, they would be required to increase the price of a paid lunch gradually, based on a formula, until they closed the gap (see Figure 1 )  Schools cannot be required to raise the price by more than 10 cents annually, but they may choose to do so  The HHFKA also included related requirements for revenue from "nonprogram" (i e , competitive) foods  The law required that any revenue from nonprogram foods accrue to the SFA-run NSFSA  In practice, this prevents revenue from competitive foods from being used for other school purposes outside of food service  The law also required that, broadly speaking, revenue from nonprogram foods equal or exceed the costs of obtaining nonprogram foods (see the regulations for a specific formula)  In June 2011, USDA-FNS published an interim final rule implementing the requirements starting in SY2011-2012, offering some flexibility for that first year  USDA subsequently provided certain exemptions through agency guidance for SY2013-2014 through SY2017-2018 for SFAs "in strong financial standing," as determined by state agencies based on different criteria  For SY2018-2019, the enacted FY2018 appropriation (Section 775 of P L  115-141 ) expanded the exemptions, requiring only SFAs with a negative balance in the NSFSA as of January 31, 2018, potentially to have to raise prices for paid meals  Other legislative proposals related to the paid lunch equity requirements were considered in recent Congresses  For example, the House committee's child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114 th Congress would have eliminated the requirements  The Senate committee's proposal would have replaced the requirements with a broader "non-federal revenue target," which could have come from household payments for full-price lunches or other state and local contributions  CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program CDF: Canned, dried, or frozen CEP: Community Eligibility Provision eSFSP: Enhanced Summer Food Service Program FFVP: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program HHFKA: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act NSFSA: Nonprofit school food service account NSLP: National School Lunch Program SBP: School Breakfast Program SFA: School food authority SFSP : Summer Food Service Program SMP: Special Milk Program SSO: Summer Seamless Option Summer EBT or SEBTC : Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children SY: school year USDA-FNS: U S  Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service


Report 2: , allowing users to search PA projects by project number), back to the high-level requirements (e g , storing data and information provided by the applicant) identified in the FAC-Trax functional requirements document and performance work statement  Officials did not track system enhancements back to high-level requirements because they did not have a complete understanding of basic user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC- Trax effort, according to the PA program manager  A PA official also said the change control process was a way to identify the basic capabilities FAC-Trax needed to have and that tracking enhancements back to high- level requirements could have made the change control process more difficult to manage, and reduced user participation if, for example, users needed to understand how their change requests related to high-level requirements  However, program officials could have tracked enhancements back to high-level requirements themselves using the change control process without putting any additional burden on users  Despite not having a complete understanding of user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC-Trax effort, analyzing whether users’ change requests satisfy higher-level requirements identified in key design and planning documents would have provided officials with a basis for more detailed and precise requirements throughout project development and helped them better manage the project, according to IT management controls  Further, according to the PMBOK® Guide, tracking or measuring system capabilities against approved requirements is a key process for managing a project’s scope, measuring project completion, and ensuring the project meets user needs and expectations  Program officials acknowledged the importance of tracking system enhancements back to documented system requirements  Ensuring that FAC-Trax meets user needs and expectations is especially important because the information system is key to the success of the new delivery model, according to PA officials  By analyzing progress made on documented, high-level requirements, a step that reflects a key IT management control for requirements development, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax will provide functionality that meets user needs and expectations  PA program officials did not fully satisfy either of the two practices in the systems testing and integration control area, according to our assessment  Key systems testing and integration practices are (1) developing test plans and test cases, which include a description of the overall approach for system testing, the set of tasks necessary to prepare for and perform testing, the roles and responsibilities for individuals or groups responsible for testing, and criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing; and (2) developing a systems integration plan to identify all systems to be integrated, describe how integration problems are to be documented and resolved, define roles and responsibilities of all relevant participants, and establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step  In regards to the first practice, PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a test plan that identifies the method and strategy to perform testing, including the necessary tasks, such as responding to user feedback and testing errors, and incorporating necessary resolutions into future work, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing  However, program officials have not developed system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax, which would align with the practice described above of using criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing  A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development  PA program officials said they did not establish a definition of done because officials initially managing the FAC-Trax effort lacked familiarity with system development in the Agile environment  Officials acknowledged the importance of establishing a definition of done and said they are planning to develop one, but have not identified how or when to incorporate it into the development process  According to the TechFAR—the government’s handbook for procuring digital services using Agile processes—the government and vendor should establish this definition after contract award at the beginning of each cycle of software development  By establishing criteria, such as a definition of done, to evaluate the system—a step that reflects a key IT management control for system testing and is an effective practice for applying Agile to software development—the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC- Trax is usable and responsive to specified requirements  In regards to the second practice, PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identified the potential for integration of FAC-Trax with four FEMA systems, including EMMIE  In addition, program officials included a description of how staff should document integration problems and the resolution of problems in FAC- Trax development and test plans  However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems  PA officials said that system integration planning for FAC-Trax is in the early stages, but acknowledged the importance of these elements of system integration planning  Officials plan to define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities and develop the sequence and schedule for every integration step as they add new systems to the FAC-Trax development plan and obtain funding needed for their integration  Nonetheless, FEMA has used FAC-Trax for selected PA disasters since October 2016 and plans to use FAC-Trax for all future disasters  According to IT management controls, agencies should establish the systems integration plan early in the project and revise it to reflect evolving and emerging user needs  By ensuring that the FAC- Trax systems integration plan defines the roles and responsibilities of relevant participants for all integration relationships and establishes a sequence and schedule for every integration step, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax functions properly with other systems and meets user needs  FEMA’s new delivery model enhances participation of hazard mitigation staff with the goal of identifying opportunities for mitigation earlier in the PA preaward process, according to PA officials  Two key changes related to hazard mitigation under the new model include (1) an emphasis on engaging with hazard mitigation specialists at the JFO earlier in the PA process and involving them in specific PA preaward activities and (2) the establishment of the PA program’s hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC  For example, position guides direct program delivery managers to coordinate with FIMA’s hazard mitigation specialists prior to recovery scoping meetings, and site inspectors to coordinate with hazard mitigation specialists prior to site inspections to discuss a PA grant applicant’s damages and any potential mitigation opportunities  PA program officials also developed guidance for conducting the exploratory call and the recovery scoping meeting with applicants, which include questions for PA staff to ask on the applicant’s interest in or plans for incorporating hazard mitigation into potential projects  In addition, a new hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC is responsible for reviewing PA projects for hazard mitigation opportunities and serving as a mitigation subject matter expert for the PA program  According to data provided by FEMA, PA grant applicants incorporated hazard mitigation into approximately 18 percent of permanent work projects for all disasters nationwide from 2012 to 2015  During test implementation of the new delivery model, state, PA, and FIMA officials all reported an increase in the number of hazard mitigation activities on PA permanent work projects  For example, state officials who participated in the second new model test in Oregon said that effective communication and coordination between PA and hazard mitigation staff resulted in applicants incorporating hazard mitigation into over 60 percent of permanent work projects  Furthermore, PA officials reported an increase in hazard mitigation during the third test implementation of the new model in Georgia following Hurricane Matthew, where approximately 16 percent of permanent work projects included mitigation, as of June 2017  This represents an increase compared to the PA program’s estimate for the proportion of projects that incorporate hazard mitigation among previous PA hurricane disasters in Georgia, which was about 3 percent, according to PA officials  While PA officials are trying to increase hazard mitigation through the new delivery model, not all disasters present the same number of opportunities to incorporate hazard mitigation  First, the PA program only incorporates hazard mitigation measures for permanent work projects, such as repairs to roads, bridges, and buildings  For example, as of June 2017, approximately 60 percent of the projects FEMA funded in Georgia for the third test implementation after Hurricane Matthew were for emergency work, which is not eligible for hazard mitigation measures  Second, the PA program only funds mitigation measures that officials determine to be cost-effective  In addition, we have previously reported on other factors that affect whether applicants incorporate hazard mitigation into PA projects, such as their capacity to manage and ability to fund hazard mitigation projects  National Planning for Hazard Mitigation In our 2015 report on disaster resilience following Hurricane Sandy, we noted that disaster affected areas have different threats and vulnerabilities, and local stakeholders make the ultimate determination whether or not to incorporate hazard mitigation into a project  Further, without a strategic approach to making disaster resilience investments, the federal government and its nonfederal partners may be unable to fully capitalize on opportunities for mitigation on the greatest known threats and hazards  We recommended that the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group develop an investment strategy to help ensure that federal funds expended to enhance disaster resilience achieve the goal of reducing the nation’s fiscal exposure because of climate change and the rise in the number of federal major disaster declarations as effectively and efficiently as possible  In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plans to issue a final National Mitigation Investment Strategy in 2018  The goals of this strategy include increasing the effectiveness of investments in reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience, and improving coordination of disaster risk management among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private entities  Although the new model establishes hazard mitigation activities for PA and FIMA staff in the preaward process, it does not standardize and prioritize hazard mitigation planning at JFOs in the way FEMA has done with prior PA program policy  Specifically, FEMA’s 2007 PA program policy standardized planning for hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts by stating that agency and state officials should issue a memorandum of understanding (MOU) early in the disaster, outlining how PA hazard mitigation will be addressed for the disaster, including what mitigation measures will be emphasized, and identifying applicable codes and standards, and any potential integration with other mitigation grant programs  However, PA program officials did not include guidance that standardizes planning for hazard mitigation, such as encouraging the use of an MOU, in FEMA’s 2010 PA program policy, the most recent update to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide in April 2017, or the New Delivery Model Operations Manual  As a result, FIMA officials said FEMA and state officials do not consistently issue MOUs that outline how FEMA and the state plan to promote PA hazard mitigation during the recovery effort, explaining that the use of the MOU is based on the preferences and priorities of the FEMA officials involved  When not issuing an MOU, FIMA hazard mitigation staff and PA officials at the JFO meet to determine the extent which hazard mitigation staff interact directly with applicants regarding PA hazard mitigation during the recovery process, according to a FIMA official  Having a consistent approach to planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation across all disasters is important for FEMA, given that FEMA experienced challenges consistently prioritizing and integrating hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts, according to GAO and others  For example, in our 2015 report on resilience in the Hurricane Sandy recovery, we found that state and local officials experienced challenges maximizing disaster resilience in the recovery effort because PA officials did not consistently prioritize hazard mitigation during project development  According to FEMA’s National Mitigation Framework, planning is vital for mitigation efforts during disaster recovery, and federal, state, and local officials should establish procedures that emphasize a coordinated delivery of mitigation activities and capitalize on opportunities to reduce future disaster losses  Similarly, the Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plan, which supports FEMA’s National Disaster Recovery Framework, identifies planning as a key task for identifying mitigation opportunities and integrating risk reduction considerations into decisions and investments during the recovery process  FIMA officials agreed that including the development of a formal plan, such as the historical 2007 PA program policy regarding the use of MOUs, for PA hazard mitigation in operations guidance would help program officials plan for and prioritize hazard mitigation  They noted that FIMA’s hazard mitigation field operations guide includes procedures for implementing proposed MOUs to achieve mitigation goals  PA program officials said that, in light of changes to the PA process under the new model and subsequent updates to program policies, the MOU policy from the 2007 PA program policy was outdated  But officials agreed that planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation at the operational level is important and said they were examining additional ways to incorporate these activities early in the PA process  As FEMA continues to implement the new model, establishing procedures to standardize hazard mitigation planning for each disaster, as it did through prior policy, could improve the prioritization of hazard mitigation in PA recovery efforts and increase the effectiveness of mitigation for reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience  PA program officials developed performance objectives and measures for hazard mitigation in the new delivery model, but could add measures to better align performance assessment for the PA program with FEMA’s broader strategic goals for hazard mitigation  In its strategic plan for 2014–2018, FEMA established an agency-wide goal to increase the percentage of FEMA-funded disaster projects, such as those under the PA program, that provide mitigation above local, state, and federal building code requirements by 5 percentage points by the end of fiscal year 2018  For example, local building codes may require measures for new construction to mitigate against future damage  To align with FEMA’s strategic goal, PA officials would also need to measure the number of PA projects that included mitigation measures that bring any repaired infrastructure to a level above applicable building codes  However, under the new model, FEMA officials developed performance objectives (and associated measures) to increase the number of projects that include hazard mitigation by 5 percent, and increase the total dollars spent on hazard mitigation by 2 percent  While these measures could help to incentivize mitigation, they are not tied to building codes and do not include specific information that FEMA could use to continually assess the PA program’s contributions to meeting the agency’s strategic goal  According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, agency management should design control activities, such as establishing and reviewing performance measures, to achieve the agency’s objectives  In addition, our work on leading public sector organizations has found that such organizations assess the extent to which their programs and activities contribute to meeting their mission and desired outcomes, and strive to establish clear hierarchies of performance goals and measures  A clear connection between performance measures and program offices helps to both reinforce accountability and ensure that, in their day-to-day activities, managers keep in mind the outcomes their organization is striving to achieve  FEMA’s ability to evaluate and report on PA hazard mitigation data is constrained, but officials are addressing this challenge through the development of data reporting and analytics capabilities for the PA program’s new information system, according to PA officials  PA program officials developed measures they could use to evaluate the new model during test implementation and compare new model performance to the legacy PA process, and agreed that aligning PA program hazard mitigation goals with FEMA’s agency-wide strategic goals would be helpful  As FEMA continues to develop and implement the new model, developing performance measures and objectives to better inform and support the agency’s broader strategic goals could help to ensure that FEMA capitalizes on hazard mitigation opportunities in PA recovery efforts  FEMA’s Public Assistance grant program is a complicated, multi-billion dollar program that is critical to helping state and local communities rebuild and recover after a major disaster  In recent years, FEMA has undertaken a major reengineering effort to make the PA preaward process simpler and more efficient for applicants and to address challenges encountered during recovery from past disasters  FEMA’s new delivery model represents a significant opportunity to strengthen the PA program and address these past challenges, and growing pains are to be expected when implementing any large reengineering effort  Further, FEMA officials work to implement these changes while supporting response and recovery following disasters, including the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and widespread damages from Hurricanes Irma and Maria in September 2017  As such, it is critical that feedback obtained and lessons learned while testing the new model inform decisions and actions as FEMA proceeds with full implementation for all disasters, including the complex recovery efforts in the states and territories affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria  FEMA has redesigned the PA delivery model to address various challenges related to workforce management, information sharing with state and local grantees, and incorporating hazard mitigation into PA projects  FEMA has developed new workforce processes, training, and positions to address past challenges, but completing a workforce assessment that identifies the number of staff needed will inform workforce management and resource allocation decisions to help FEMA ensure a more successful implementation  This is particularly important as FEMA is using the new model for the long-term recovery from the 2017 hurricanes, and FEMA faces capacity challenges as its workforce is stretched thin  Further, FEMA’s new FAC-Trax information sharing system provides FEMA and state and local applicants and grantees with better capabilities to address past challenges in managing and tracking PA projects  In developing FAC-Trax, FEMA implemented many of the key IT management controls that can help ensure that new IT systems are implemented effectively  However, additional steps are needed to fully satisfy the areas of requirements development and systems testing and integration  Finally, FEMA has taken some actions to better promote hazard mitigation as part of its new PA model  However, more consistent planning for hazard mitigation following a PA disaster and developing specific performance measures and objectives that better align with and support the agency’s broader strategic goals related to hazard mitigation could help to ensure that mitigation is incorporated into recovery efforts, which presents an opportunity to encourage disaster resilience and reduce federal fiscal exposure from recurring catastrophic natural disasters  We are making the following five recommendations to FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for Recovery: The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the appropriate number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and in FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre to implement the new delivery model nationwide  (Recommendation 1) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to the system’s functional and operational requirements to more fully satisfy requirements development controls and ensure that the new information system provides capabilities that meets users’ needs and expectations  (Recommendation 2) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish system testing criteria, such as a “definition of done,” to assess FAC- Trax as it is developed; define the roles and responsibilities of all participants; and develop the sequence and schedule for integration of other systems with FAC-Trax to more fully satisfy systems testing and integration controls  (Recommendation 3) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the joint field offices, for example, by requiring FEMA and state officials to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining how they will prioritize and address hazard mitigation following a disaster as it did through prior policy  (Recommendation 4) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model to better align with FEMA’s strategic goal for hazard mitigation in the recovery process  (Recommendation 5) We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FEMA for review and comment  DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III  In its comments, DHS concurred with our recommendations and described actions planned to address them  FEMA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  With regard to our first recommendation, that FEMA complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre, DHS stated that PA, in coordination with the Field Operations Directorate and FIMA, will continue to refine and evaluate staffing needs and update the cadre force structures under the new delivery model  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 28, 2019  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our second recommendation, that FEMA establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to ensure the new information system meets users’ needs, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax Requirements Management Plan and the FAC-Trax Release Plan to ensure the tracking and traceability of FAC-Trax functional and operational requirements  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by January 31, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our third recommendation, that FEMA establish systems testing criteria to assess the development of FAC-Trax; and define the roles and responsibilities, and sequence and schedule for system integration, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax System Integration Plan to include integration with the Deployment Tracking System, Enterprise Data Warehouse, Preliminary Damage Assessment interface, and State Grants Management system interface  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our fourth recommendation, that FEMA implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the JFO, DHS stated that PA will update current process documents or develop new documents to better incorporate mitigation into the operational planning phase of the new delivery model  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by July 31, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  With regard to our fifth recommendation, that PA coordinate with FIMA to develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model that better align with FEMA’s strategic goals for hazard mitigation in the recovery process, DHS stated that PA will reconvene the PA-Mitigation working group to develop and refine PA related hazard mitigation performance measures  DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018  This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional committees  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or CurrieC@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Appendix II: Assessment of Information Technology Management Controls for the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax) Table 2 shows details on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) program office’s implementation of key practices across four information technology (IT) management control areas for its new information system, the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax)  PA developed FAC-Trax as a web-based project tracking and case management system to supplement the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment (EMMIE) and help resolve long-standing information sharing challenges  To determine the extent to which the FAC-Trax program office implemented IT management controls, we reviewed documentation from the FAC-Trax program and compared it to key management best practices, including the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition and Development, the Project Management Institute’s Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Standard for Software and System Test Documentation  We assessed the program as having fully implemented a practice if the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the practice; partially implemented if the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the practice; and not implemented if the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the practice  Table 2  Public Assistance (PA) Program Office’s Implementation of Key Information Technology Management Controls for FAC-Trax PA program officials developed an acquisition plan for FAC-Trax identifying the capabilities the system is intended to deliver, the acquisition approach, and acquisition objectives  Additionally, program officials developed a capability development plan outlining a strategy for the program to obtain approval to acquire FAC-Trax  Lastly, program officials developed a systems engineering plan describing the program’s scope and its framework for using an Agile development approach, as well as a deployment, support, and maintenance plan for FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s cost parameters and a life-cycle cost estimate for the system  As of May 2017, the life- cycle cost estimate for FAC-Trax through fiscal year (FY) 2023 is approximately $19 3 million  PA program officials updated the life-cycle cost estimate for FYs 2016 and 2017 after price negotiations with the FAC-Trax contractor, and will continue to update the estimate as annual budgets are approved, according to the Integrated Logistic Support Plan  The contracting officer’s representative for FAC-Trax performs a cost review at the end of each month, according to program officials  Furthermore, the contractor’s weekly status report includes information on the number of hours worked and the percent of contract value spent  Program officials also review program costs with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s schedule parameters, as well as an integrated master schedule for the system  The integrated master schedule identifies tasks, major milestones, and task dependencies  The PA program manager reviews and updates the integrated master schedule on a weekly basis  Program officials also review FAC-Trax’s schedule with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials identified the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the program in FAC-Trax contract documentation and the capability development plan  Specifically, program officials included an attachment to the FAC-Trax contract listing the required labor categories and corresponding functional position descriptions  Program officials also described the role, position type, minimum grade, and minimum certification for required personnel resources for the acquisition, development, and implementation of FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed, reviewed, and maintained project planning documents and obtained commitment from relevant stakeholders  For example, program officials reviewed and updated the integrated master schedule and costs on a weekly and monthly basis, respectively  Further, program officials reviewed the status of project elements, such as the schedule, quality and technical issues, stakeholders, staffing, cost, and risks, with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  PA program officials also established tactical, functional, and stakeholder groups, as well as an Integrated Product Team to support and oversee the development of FAC-Trax  FEMA’s Recovery Technology Programs Division (RTPD) has a division-level risk management plan that serves as guidance for all Recovery systems, including FAC- Trax  Program officials identified key risks that could negatively affect FAC-Trax work efforts in RTPD’s “risk register”—an online site used to track risks, issues, and mitigating actions for the division and each program office  Program officials also identified five technical, cost, and schedule risks in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  Program officials included one of these risks in the risk register, while the remaining four were managed outside of the register  As of May 2017, program officials had identified 13 risks in its risk register—four open and nine closed  The four open risks were (1) limited subject matter expert engagement during requirements development, (2) vacancies in program management office support positions, (3) unresolved service level agreement support and funding issues, and (4) the loss of the authority to operate due to a Trusted Internet Connection that is not compliant with Department of Homeland Security security policy  Program officials evaluated and categorized the identified risks based on the probability of occurrence and scope, schedule, and cost impacts  These four points of measurement are used to calculate an overall risk score  The risk score helps program officials determine a risk’s risk rating—low, medium, or high  For example, program officials reported that two of its open risks have a “medium” risk rating—meaning the risk has the potential to slightly impact project cost, schedule, or performance  In addition, program officials detailed the risk category, probability, and impact for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  Program officials developed risk mitigation and contingency plans for each risk in the risk register  For example, program officials planned to mitigate the open risk concerning subject matter expert engagement, by identifying and engaging with appropriate subject matter experts through requirements development workshops scheduled in advance of the sprint they are to support, and monitoring the development of user stories to identify any issues that may cause delays  In addition, program officials described the risk management plan and responsible officials for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan  PA program officials review and update program risks during a monthly program meeting  Program officials also review program risks with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review  Furthermore, the FAC-Trax contractor provides a weekly status update which includes a section on identified risks  Program officials established re-evaluation dates and recorded updates, including any actions taken, for each risk in the risk register  In addition, program officials were able to provide updates on the four risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan and managed outside of the register  According to PA officials, these risks were addressed and closed by the approval of program planning documents, such as the mission needs statement, concept of operations, and operational requirements document, following the solutions engineering review, which demonstrates the readiness of the program to proceed with the procurement, in September 2016  Program officials established a requirements management plan outlining how it captures, assesses, and plans for FAC-Trax enhancements, and established a change control process to review, prioritize, and verify user requests for changes to the system and feedback  As of May 2017, the PA program office received 734 change requests related to FAC-Trax, of which program officials completed 420 changes and planned to address an additional 277 entries  PA program officials also facilitated workshops to gather requirements for specific user groups and obtained additional requirements for FAC-Trax through customer feedback on a temporary technology tool— an Access database referred to as the Public Assistance Recovery Information System—used to support an early stage of the new model implementation  Further, program officials developed a functional requirements document outlining the high-level functional and operational requirements for FAC-Trax  PA program officials developed a concept of operations for FAC-Trax detailing operating concepts and scenarios for each phase of the PA preaward process  Program officials also detailed the workflow, phases, business functions, and data inputs and outputs for the re-engineered PA process in FAC-Trax’s functional requirements document  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to describe the process, tasks, and data inputs and outputs for specific system capabilities  As part of the change control process, PA program officials meet three times a week to discuss and prioritize change requests  Specifically, program officials review submissions to the change control form to ensure completeness, validate impacts and root cause, and research details for incoming requests  PA program officials also follow up with users to understand and verify requirements  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to capture acceptance criteria for specific requirements  However, PA program officials do not track system enhancements back to the high-level requirements identified in FAC-Trax’s operational and functional requirements documentation and performance work statement  PA program officials identified system requirements and constraints in the FAC-Trax concept of operations and functional and operational requirements documents  Further, through its change control process, program officials collect suggestions, issues, and feedback on FAC-Trax and system enhancements from stakeholders, identify risks for change requests, and balance prioritized requirements and estimated level of efforts with projected costs prior to each sprint  In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to analyze and document the urgency and need for specific requirements  PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a testing and evaluation plan for the system, developed acceptance criteria for user stories, and obtained feedback from users during and after testing  The testing process concludes with user acceptance testing (UAT)  If a change request fails during UAT or a new requirement is discovered during development, the PA program will capture the failed request or new requirement in the product backlog for implementation in a future product release  Key practices Systems testing and integration Developing test plans and test cases PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor tested and evaluated the system during development  The FAC-Trax test plan identifies the method and strategy to perform the testing, including the necessary tasks, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing  However, program officials did not develop system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax  A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development  PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identifies potential integration of FAC-Trax and four FEMA systems, including the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment  Specifically, the plan includes data requirements and standards; descriptions of the four systems FEMA plans to integrate with FAC-Trax and the proposed relationship for each connection; and security and access management requirements  In addition, program officials included a description of how integration problems are to be documented and resolved in FAC-Trax development and test plans  However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems  ● Fully implemented: The agency provided evidence that it fully addressed this practice  ◐ Partially implemented: The agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of this practice  ◌ Not implemented: The agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed this practice  In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant Director), Amanda R  Parker (Analyst-in-Charge), Mathew Bader, Allison Bawden, Anthony Bova, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Rianna Jansen, Justin Jaynes, Tracey King, Matthew T  Lowney, Heidi Nielson, Claire Peachey, Brenda Rabinowitz, Ryan Siegel, Martin Skorczynski, Niti Tandon, Walter K  Vance, James T  Williams, and Eric Winter made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The Coast Guard, a component of DHS, serves as the principal federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental stewardship in U.S. ports and waterways. To ensure that the Coast Guard is effectively fulfilling its missions, agency managers must have accurate information and base decisions on sound analyses for effective program management. This statement discusses Coast Guard actions needed to (1) improve the quality of data used for program management and (2) improve the transparency of its data for reporting on mission performance and planning. This statement is based on relevant products GAO issued from June 2014 through December 2017 on Coast Guard strategic planning and management issues, as well as related recommendation follow-up conducted through February 2018. GAO reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies and guidance. GAO also interviewed Coast Guard officials responsible for administering these programs and obtained information on how they used data to inform decisionmaking. GAO interviewed a range of stakeholders, including federal and industry officials. GAO's prior work recommended multiple actions to improve the Coast Guard's program management by improving the quality of data it uses to manage and report on its mission performance. Specifically, GAO recommended actions such as collecting more complete data and clarifying the data limitations to facilitate more effective program management. For example, in December 2017, GAO found that more information is needed to calculate vessel safety statistics that could enhance the Coast Guard's knowledge about accident, injury, and fatality trends involving commercial fishing vessels. Having more complete information could be useful to carrying out its marine safety mission, and GAO recommended, among other things, that the Coast Guard ensure that data collected during commercial fishing vessel incident investigations is accurately captured. In 2018, the Coast Guard reported taking initial steps to capture more accurate data. GAO's prior work also identified areas where the Coast Guard could improve the transparency of the data it uses for reporting on its mission performance as well its capital planning purposes. For example, in an October 2017 report on performance goals, GAO found the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) has not been released publicly since 2011. Consequently, there has not been full visibility over performance across all of the Coast Guard's missions. Coast Guard officials stated that a decision by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership to limit the number of performance goals shared publicly had deterred the Coast Guard from public release of its APR. GAO recommended that APRs be available on the Coast Guard's website; the Coast Guard plans to publicly release future APRs. In addition, previous GAO reports found that the Coast Guard's annual 5-year capital investment plan, which projects acquisition funding needs for the upcoming 5 years, did not consistently reflect current total cost estimates or the effects of tradeoffs made as part of the annual budget cycle. GAO made recommendations to help the Coast Guard plan for future acquisitions and the difficult trade off decisions it will face given funding constraints. The Coast Guard agreed, but it is unclear when it will complete the 20-year plan. GAO is not making new recommendations in this statement but has made them to the Coast Guard and DHS in the past on improving its program management through, among other things, better quality and more transparent data. DHS and the Coast Guard agreed with these recommendations and reported actions or plans to address them.