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



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



Report 2: The Forest Service’s mission includes sustaining the nation’s forests and grasslands; managing the productivity of those lands for the benefit of citizens; conserving open space; enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities; and conducting research and development in the biological, physical, and social sciences  The agency carries out its responsibilities in three main program areas: (1) managing public lands, known collectively as the National Forest System, through nine regional offices, 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and over 600 ranger districts; (2) conducting research through its network of seven research stations, multiple associated research laboratories, and 81 experimental forests and ranges; and (3) working with state and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners and forest users in the management, protection, and development of forest land in nonfederal ownership, largely through its nine regional offices  According to the Forest Service, it employs a workforce of over 30,000 employees across the country  However, this number grows by thousands in the summer months, when the agency hires seasonal employees to conduct fieldwork, respond to wildland fires, and meet the visiting public’s needs  The Office of the Chief of the Forest Service is located in Washington, D C , with 27 offices reporting directly to the Office of the Chief, as illustrated in figure 1  The nine national forest regions, each led by a regional forester, oversee the national forests and grasslands located in their respective regions  Each national forest or grassland is headed by a supervisor, the seven research stations are each led by a station director, and a state and private forestry area is headed by an area director  The Forest Service collectively refers to its forest regions, research stations, and area as RSAs  The RSAs are organized differently according to their operations, and comparable operations within the RSAs, such as collections from reimbursable agreements, may be processed differently in the various regions and stations, resulting in highly decentralized operations  In addition, the offices of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Deputy Chief of Business Operations (includes the budget office); and eight other offices located in the Washington, D C , headquarters also report directly to the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service  The Forest Service receives appropriations for its various programs and for specific purposes to meet its mission goals  Prior to fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service’s budgetary resources consisted primarily of no-year funds  Its budget office in Washington, D C , initiates apportionment requests and monitors the receipt of Department of the Treasury (Treasury) warrants  Upon receipt of the warrant, the apportionment is recorded in the financial system and then the budget office develops an allocation summary detailing the allocation of its budget authority by fund, programs within the funds, and distribution of funds at the regional, station, and area levels  The Forest Service may also transfer funds from other appropriations to the appropriations account that funds its fire suppression activities when available funds appropriated for fire suppression and the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) fund will be exhausted within 30 days  The Forest Service’s administrative policies, practices, and procedures are issued in its Directive System, which provides a unified system for issuing, storing, and retrieving internal direction that governs Forest Service programs and activities  The Directive System consists of the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks  The manuals contain management objectives, policies, and responsibilities and provide general direction to Forest Service line officers and staff directors for planning and executing their assigned programs and activities  The handbooks provide detailed direction to employees and are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out directions issued in the manuals  Line officers at the national and RSA levels have authority to issue directives in the manuals and handbooks under their respective jurisdictions  The Forest Service’s policy states that the Directive System is the only place where Forest Service policy and procedures are issued  In addition to the Directive System, Forest Service staff have also developed standard operating procedures (SOP) and desk guides to supplement guidance provided in directives  However, the SOPs and desk guides are not part of the Forest Service Directive System and therefore are not official policy and procedures  While the Forest Service had documented processes for allotting its budgetary resources, it did not have an adequate process and related control activities for reasonably assuring that (1) amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated and (2) unobligated no-year appropriation balances from prior years were reviewed for their continuing need  In addition, the Forest Service did not have a properly designed and documented system for administrative control of funds  Finally, the Forest Service had not properly designed control activities for fund transfers for fire suppression activities under its Wildland Fire Management program  While the Forest Service had documented processes for allotting its budgetary resources, it did not have an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated—as required by the purpose statute, which states that “appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law ” We reviewed Forest Service documents about its budget authority processes, which included control objectives, related control activities, and processes over the allotment of its budgetary resources  We found that these documents, including manuals and handbooks, did not include an adequate process and related control activities for assuring that appropriated amounts are used for the purposes designated  For example, such a process would include the Forest Service allotting appropriated funds for specific programs or objects as provided in the applicable appropriation act, by either using specific budget line items already defined in the Forest Service’s financial system or creating new budget line items, as needed  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and design appropriate control activities to achieve objectives and respond to the risks identified  As a result of the Forest Service not having an adequate process and related control activities for assuring that appropriated amounts are used for the purposes designated, the Forest Service did not properly allocate certain funds for specific purposes detailed in the appropriations acts for fiscal years 2015 and 2016  For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Forest Service did not set aside in its financial system the $65 million specified in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations act for acquiring aircraft for the next- generation airtanker fleet  According to Forest Service documents, as of January 6, 2016, $35 million of the designated funds was used for other purposes  In February 2017, we issued a legal opinion, related to the Forest Service’s use of the $65 million, which concluded that the Forest Service had failed to comply with the purpose statute  According to USDA’s Office of General Counsel, “this lack of any separate apportionment or account for the next-generation airtanker fleet was due to the fact that it was a new item, not included in the agency’s budget request, and added late in the appropriations process ” Similarly, in fiscal year 2016, the Forest Service did not create new budget line items to reserve in its financial system $75 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program specified in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act  Rather than creating a new budget line item for the program specified in the appropriations act, the funds were combined with an existing budget line item, making it difficult to track related budget amounts and actual expenditures  The lack of an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that appropriated amounts are used for the purpose designated also increases the risk that the Forest Service may violate the Antideficiency Act  The Forest Service did not have a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated, no-year funds from prior years were reviewed for continuing need  We reviewed the Forest Service’s budget authority process document and related manuals and handbooks, which documented control objectives and procedures over its budgetary resources and the guidance for administrative control of funds  We found that these documents did not include a process for reviewing the Forest Service’s unobligated, no-year funds from prior years and related control activities to reasonably assure that such funds were reviewed for continuing need  Such reviews, if performed, may identify unneeded funds that could be reallocated to other programs needing additional budgetary resources, if consistent with the purposes designated in appropriations acts  The USDA Budget Manual states as a department policy that “agencies of the Department have a responsibility to review their programs continually and recommend, when appropriate, deferrals or rescissions ” The USDA Budget Manual further states the following: “Agency officials should remain alert to this responsibility since the establishment of reserves is an important phase of budgetary administration  If it becomes evident during the fiscal year that any amount of funds available will not be needed to carry out foreseeable program requirements, it is in the interest of good management to recommend appropriate actions, thereby maintaining a realistic relationship between apportionments, allotments, and obligations ” However, the Forest Service did not develop a directive addressing the control objectives, related risks, and control activities for implementing this USDA policy  Up until fiscal year 2017, Forest Service budgetary resources consisted primarily of no-year funds  At the beginning of each fiscal year, unobligated balances of no-year funds are carried forward and reapportioned to become part of budget authority available for obligation in the new fiscal year  Unobligated balances can increase during the fiscal year due to deobligation of prior years’ unliquidated obligations that the Forest Service determines it no longer needs  These resources are immediately available to the Forest Service to the extent authorized by law without further legislation or action from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless the apportionment states otherwise  According to Forest Service officials, unobligated funds reported in the Forest Service’s September 30, 2016, Statement of Budgetary Resources included $351 million in discretionary unobligated no-year funds, appropriated as far back as fiscal year 1999  The Forest Service did not identify and define a process and control objectives related to its review of unobligated no-year funds from prior years for continuing need  As a result, the Forest Service did not have reasonable assurance that prior no-year unobligated balances were properly managed and considered in its annual budget requests  This increased the risk that the Forest Service may make budget requests in excess of its needs  Additionally, the Forest Service could miss opportunities to use its prior year unobligated no-year funds more timely and effectively, for example, using these funds for other Forest Service program needs, if consistent with the purposes designated in appropriations acts  During our work, we brought this issue to management’s attention, and in response, Forest Service officials stated that the Forest Service is planning to develop a quarterly process to review available balances and, as needed, redirect funds to agency priorities  However, as of July 2017, the Forest Service had not yet developed this review process  Further, Congress rescinded about $18 million of the Forest Service’s prior year unobligated balances and required it to report unobligated balances quarterly within 30 days after the close of each quarter and appropriated multi-year funds instead of no- year funds to the Forest Service for fiscal year 2017  The Forest Service issued guidance related to administrative control of funds in manuals and handbooks, which USDA did not review and approve prior to their issuance  Based on our review of these documents, we found that the processes and related control activities over the administrative control of funds were dispersed in numerous manuals and handbooks, which may hamper a clear understanding of the overall system  Further, the system lacked key elements that would allow it to serve as an adequate system of administrative control of funds  For example, in its manuals and handbooks the Forest Service did not identify, by title or office, those officials with the authority and responsibility for obligating the service’s appropriated funds, such as funds for contracts, travel, and training  As a result, the responsibility for obligating funds was not clearly described and properly assigned in Forest Service policy as required by the USDA Budget Manual and OMB Circular No  A-11  OMB Circular No  A-11 states that the Antideficiency Act requires that the agency head prescribe, by regulation, a system of administrative control of funds, and OMB provided a checklist in appendix H to the circular that agencies can use for drafting their fund control regulations  This requirement is consistent with those in the USDA Budget Manual, which prescribes budgetary administration through a system of administrative controls for its component agencies, including the Forest Service  The USDA Budget Manual states that to the extent necessary for effective administration, (1) the heads of USDA component agencies may delegate to subordinate officials responsibilities in connection with the administrative distribution of funds within apportionments and allotments and the monitoring, control, and reporting of the occurrence of obligations and expenditures under apportionments and allotments and (2) the chain of such responsibility shall be clearly defined  In addition, USDA requires its component agencies to promulgate and maintain administrative control of funds regulation and to send such regulation to USDA’s Office of Program and Budget Analysis for review and approval prior to issuance  Because the Forest Service has not developed and issued a comprehensive system for administrative control of funds that considers all aspects of the budget execution processes, it cannot reasonably assure that (1) programs will achieve their intended results; (2) the use of resources is consistent with the agency’s mission; (3) programs and resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement; and (4) laws and regulations are followed  We also found that the Forest Service had not reviewed and updated most of its administrative control of funds guidance in the manuals and handbooks for over 5 years  The USDA Budget Manual requires each component to periodically review its funds control system for overall effectiveness and to assure that it is consistent with its agency programs and organizational structures  Further, Forest Service policy also requires routine review, every 5 years, of policies and procedures in its Directive System  According to Forest Service officials, when directives are up for review and update, a staff from the Office of Regulatory and Management Services (ORMS) sends an e-mail reminder to notify responsible personnel that updates to applicable directives are needed  However, we found that the Forest Service does not have adequate controls in place to monitor the reviews and any updates of the manuals and handbooks in its Directive System to reasonably assure that their efforts resulted in timely updates  As a result, the Forest Service is at risk that guidance for its system for administrative control of funds may lose relevance as processes change over time and control activities may become inadequate  The Forest Service did not have properly designed control activities over its process for fund transfers related to wildland fire suppression activities  The Forest Service receives appropriations for necessary expenses for (1) fire suppression activities on National Forest System lands, (2) emergency fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands under fire protection agreement, (3) hazardous fuels management on or adjacent to such lands, and (4) state and volunteer fire assistance  Transfer of funds from other Forest Service programs to its fire suppression activities occurs when the Forest Service has exhausted all available funds appropriated for the purpose of fire suppression and the FLAME fund  A key aspect of this process is assessing the FLAME forecast, which the Forest Service uses to predict the costs of fighting wildland fires for a given season, and developing a strategy to identify specific programs and the amounts that may be transferred to pay for fire suppression activities when needed  The process for reviewing the FLAME forecast and strategizing the fund transfers was documented in the Basic Budget Desk Guide created by staff in the Forest Service’s Strategic Planning and Budget Analysis Office  However, the desk guide did not contain evidence of review by responsible officials  As a result, the Forest Service lacked reasonable assurance that the desk guide was complete and appropriate for its use  The Basic Budget Desk Guide included a listing of actions to be performed by the analyst for reviewing the FLAME forecast report and developing a strategy for fund transfer from other programs  However, the desk guide did not specify the factors to be considered when developing the strategy  For example, it did not call for documentation addressing the rationale for the strategy or an assessment of the risk that the fund transfer could have on the programs from which the funds would be transferred  The desk guide also did not describe the review and approval of the strategy by a responsible official(s) prior to the fund transfer request sent to the Chief of the Forest Service  According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks and that such control activities should be designed at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure  Further, management may design a variety of transaction control activities for operational processes, which may include verifications, authorizations and approvals, and supervisory control activities  The lack of properly designed control activities for supervisory review of the desk guide and strategy to identify the amounts for fund transfers does not provide the Forest Service reasonable assurance that the objectives of the fund transfers—including mitigating the risk of a shortfall of funding for other critical Forest Service program activities, such as payroll or other day-to-day operating costs—will be efficiently and effectively achieved  The Forest Service enters into various reimbursable agreements with agencies within USDA, other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities to carry out its mission for public benefit  The reimbursable agreements may be for the Forest Service to provide goods and services to a third party or to receive goods and services from a third party, or may be a partnership agreement with a third party for a common goal  According to Forest Service officials, the two distinct types of Forest Service reimbursable agreements are (1) fire incident cooperative agreements and (2) reimbursable and advanced collection agreements (RACA)  The Forest Service did not have documented processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure the effectiveness and efficiency of its related fire incident operations  In addition, processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs were not adequately described in applicable manuals and handbooks in the Directive System, to reasonably assure that control activities could be performed consistently and effectively  Further, certain RACA processes in the Directive System had not been timely reviewed by management and did not reflect current processes  Moreover, as previously discussed, SOPs and desk guides developed in field offices related to RACA processes were not in the Forest Service’s Directive System  Finally, the Forest Service lacked control activities segregating incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers in creating reimbursable agreements and the final disposition of related receivables  The Forest Service did not have documented processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure the effectiveness and efficiency of its related fire incident operations and reliable reporting internally and externally  As part of the service’s mission objective to suppress wildland fires, Forest Service officials stated that they enter into 5-year agreements referred to as master cooperative agreements with federal, state, and other entities  These agreements document the framework for commitment and support efficient and effective coordination and cooperation among the parties in suppressing fires, when they occur  The master cooperative agreements do not require specific funding commitments as amounts are not yet known  These agreements vary from region to region because of the differing laws and regulations pertaining to the participating states and other entities  These variations can also result in different billing and collection processes between regions  When a fire occurs, supplemental agreements, which are based on the framework established in the applicable master cooperative agreements, are signed by relevant parties for each fire incident  These agreements establish the share of fire suppression costs incurred by the Forest Service and amounts related to entities that benefitted from those fire suppression efforts  These supplemental agreements require commitment and obligation of funds  As indicated in figure 2, the Forest Service’s obligations for fire suppression activities ranged from $412 million to $1 4 billion over the 10-year period from fiscal years 2007 through 2016  In response to our request for documentation of processes and related control activities over its fire incident cooperative agreements, Forest Service officials stated that processes and related control activities over reimbursable agreements were applicable to both fire incident cooperative agreements and RACAs  However, based on our review of the Forest Service’s processes and related control activities over its reimbursable agreements, we found that the unique features of fire incident cooperative agreements (as compared to features of RACAs) were not addressed in the processes and related controls for reimbursable agreements  For example, there was no process and related control activities over the negotiation and review of (1) a fire incident master cooperative agreement, which is developed before a fire occurs, and (2) supplemental agreements, which are signed by all relevant parties after the start of a fire incident  These supplemental agreements detail, among other things, the terms for (1) fire department resource use, (2) financial arrangements, and (3) specific cost-sharing agreements  Another unique feature of fire incident cooperative agreements, which was not covered in process documents for its reimbursable agreements, was the preparation of the Cost Settlement Package  The preparation of this package does not start until after the fire has ended and the Forest Service has received and paid all bills  According to Forest Service officials, a fire incident is deemed to have ended when there are no more resources (firefighters and equipment) on the ground putting out the fire  However, this definition was not documented in the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks in the Directive System  Based on our review of documentation that the Forest Service provided for four fire incidents, we found that for these incidents the Cost Settlement Packages and the billings took several months to years to complete after the fire incident  According to Forest Service officials, delays in preparing the Cost Settlement Package in many cases were due to parties involved in suppressing the fires taking a long time to submit their invoices to the Forest Service for payment  Because the preparation of Cost Settlement Packages was not included in the process documents, the Forest Service did not have a defined time frame for when, in relation to the end of the fire, the Cost Settlement Package must be completed  For example, in one case we reviewed, the bill for a cost settlement was sent 9 months after the fire occurred, and in another case, settlement occurred approximately 2 years after the fire occurred  For both fire incidents, based on the reports we reviewed, the fires were contained within a week or two, but the Forest Service does not have a policy for documenting the date when the fire incident is deemed to have ended  Because of the complexity of the process for negotiating and determining the reimbursable amounts from all the costs that the Forest Service pays for a fire incident, the reimbursable amounts may take time to negotiate, and subsequent billing to and collection from parties may take much longer  Forest Service officials stated that some receivables that were not going to be collected until after its financial system’s aging process for receivables deemed such receivables uncollectible and a bad debt are tracked in a spreadsheet outside its financial system  We found that the Forest Service did not have a documented process and related control activities to reasonably assure that its Budget Office was informed of these older receivables being tracked in a spreadsheet and the related progress of collection activities that local program managers and line officers perform, which could affect the reliability of the reported reimbursable receivable amounts  According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should internally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  Without proper communication, important information, such as amounts that the Forest Service will receive from fire incident cost settlement negotiations, may not be considered in the Forest Service’s strategy for the effective and efficient management of fund transfers for fire suppression activities  Processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs were not adequately described in Forest Service manuals and handbooks in its Directive System  RACAs, which may be for research or other nonemergency purposes, are billed and collected based on previously agreed upon billing and collection terms  In accordance with the Forest Service’s Directive System, policies related to business processes, such as RACAs, are documented in its manuals while procedures for performing specialized activities are documented in its handbooks  We found that the manuals and handbooks in the Directive System did not adequately describe the processes and related control activities over the RACA processes to enable efficient and effective performance of the work by appropriate and responsible personnel  The manuals and handbooks related to RACAs state that a manager review the documentation to ensure that the funding supports the objective of the agreement, the agreement is the correct instrument for funding the project, all relevant terms and conditions have been included in the agreement, the entity’s financial strength and capability are acceptable, and all applicable regulations and OMB circulars have been addressed  However, there was no discussion in the manuals and handbooks about when the manager needs to perform the reviews and how these reviews were to be documented  Further, in response to our inquiry regarding procedures performed to assess the entity’s financial strength and capability are acceptable before a RACA is signed, Forest Service officials stated that there is currently no formal process for determining financial capability for RACAs  For reimbursable agreements, the Forest Service’s process documented in its handbook consisted of completing a creditworthiness checklist  However, the handbook did not describe procedures for (1) completing the checklist and (2) documenting responsible personnel’s review and approval of an entity’s acceptable financial capability  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks  Management’s design of internal control establishes and communicates the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel  Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel  Further, the standards also explain that management clearly document internal control in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available and properly managed and maintained  In addition, the manuals and handbooks applicable to the RACAs have not been timely reviewed by management, and had not been updated to reflect current processes
Report 2:  Regarding interviews, DHS officials stated that the working group established a requirement for all applicants seeking an immigration benefit, including NIV applicants, to undergo a baseline uniform national security and public safety interview  DHS officials stated that the working group modeled its interview baseline on elements of the refugee screening interview  To help implement this standard, DHS officials stated that the department is offering more training courses in enhanced communications (i e  detecting deception and eliciting responses) and making such courses accessible to other U S  government entities and U S  officials overseas  Regarding security checks, the working group identified certain checks that should be conducted for all applicants seeking an immigration benefit, including NIV applicants  For example, DHS officials stated that the working group concluded that all applicants for U S  immigration benefits should be screened against DHS’s TECS, among other federal databases  In February 2018, DHS Office of Policy officials stated that they were also exploring the extent to which current screening and vetting technologies can be expanded  For example, technology that is being used to screen applicants for counterterrorism concerns can potentially be modified to screen applicants for other concerns such as public safety or participation in transnational organized crime  However, these officials noted such changes to technology can take a long time  DHS officials stated that each department and agency is responsible for implementing the uniform standards for their relevant immigration programs  For example, with regard to maintaining information electronically, State officials stated that for nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, as of May 2018, they collected most, but not all, of the application data elements  In addition to executive actions taken in calendar year 2017, the President issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 9 on February 6, 2018, which directed DHS, in coordination with State, DOJ, and ODNI, to establish a National Vetting Center to optimize the use of federal government information in support of the national vetting enterprise  This memorandum stated that the U S  government must develop an integrated approach to the use of intelligence and other data, across national security components, in order to improve how departments and agencies coordinate and use information to identify individuals presenting a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety  The center is to be overseen and guided by a National Vetting Governance Board, consisting of six senior executives designated by DHS, DOJ, ODNI, State, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense  Further, within 180 days of the issuance of the memorandum, these six departments and agencies, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, are to jointly submit to the President for approval an implementation plan for the center, addressing, among other things, the initial scope of the center’s vetting activities; the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in the center; a resourcing strategy for the center; and a projected schedule to reach both initial and full operational capability  On February 14, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security selected an official to serve as the Director of the National Vetting Center and delegated the center’s authorities to CBP  DHS Office of Policy officials stated in February 2018 that the center is intended to serve as the focal point of the larger screening and vetting enterprise, and will coordinate policy and set priorities  The center will use the uniform baselines for screening and vetting standards and procedures established per EO-2 to set short- and long-term priorities to improve screening and vetting across the U S  government  Further, these officials stated screening and vetting activities will continue to be implemented by the entities that are currently implementing such efforts, but roles and responsibilities for screening and vetting for immigration benefits may be modified in the future based on the work of the center  According to DHS Office of Policy officials, efforts to implement National Security Presidential Memorandum 9, such as the development of an implementation plan, are ongoing as of June 2018  Implementation of new visa screening and vetting protocols and procedures  In response to the EOs and a March 2017 presidential memorandum issued the same day as EO-2, State has taken several actions to implement new visa screening and vetting protocols and procedures  For example, State sought and received emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget in May 2017 to develop a new form, the DS-5535  The form collects additional information from a subset of visa applicants to more rigorously evaluate applicants for visa ineligibilities, including those related to national security and terrorism  The new information requested includes the applicant’s travel history over the prior 15 years, all phone numbers used over the prior 15 years, and all email addresses and social media handles used in the last 5 years  State estimated that, across all posts, the groups requiring additional vetting represented about 70,500 individuals per year  We provided a draft of the sensitive version of this report to DHS, DOJ, State, and ODNI  DHS, DOJ, and State provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until seven days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777or GamblerR@gao gov  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV  There are many nonimmigrant visas (NIV), which are issued to foreign nationals such as tourists, business visitors, and students seeking temporary admission into the United States  For the purposes of this report, we placed the majority of NIVs into one of seven groups  In the following enclosures, we provide a descriptive overview of each group on the basis of our analysis of the Department of State’s (State) fiscal years 2012 through 2017 NIV data  Each enclosure also contains the following: Description of the group  In this section, we provide a narrative description of the group, as well as a table of the specific NIVs that comprise the group  Characteristics of the applicants  In this section, we provide the number of annual NIV adjudications for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, the specific NIVs adjudicated in fiscal year 2017 within the group, the regions to which applicants applied for these NIVs in fiscal year 2017, and the top five nationalities that applied for NIVs in the group in fiscal year 2017  Issuances  In this section, we provide the number of NIVs issued within this group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Refusals  In this section, we provide the refusal rate for the entire NIV group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  For the NIVs that were refused in fiscal year 2017 for this group, we also provide the top ground for refusal  NIV applicants can be refused a visa on a number of grounds of inadmissibility or other ineligibility under U S  immigration law and State policy  However, across all visa groups, the top categories were either ineligible nonimmigrant or inadequate documentation: Ineligible nonimmigrant  For most NIV categories, the applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant until the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she is entitled to a nonimmigrant status  An applicant may be refused under this provision if, among other things, the consular officer determines the applicant lacks sufficient ties to his or her home country, or intends to abandon foreign residence; that evidence otherwise indicates an intent to immigrate to the United States permanently; or that the applicant is likely to violate the terms of the visa after being admitted  Inadequate documentation  The consular officer determined that the application is not in compliance with the INA because, for example, it lacks necessary documentation to allow the consular officer to determine visa eligibility  In such cases, the applicant would not be found eligible for the visa unless and until satisfactory documentation is provided to the consular officer or after the completion of administrative processing, such as security advisory opinions  Visa types (FY 2017) (9,968,157 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (9,968,157 adjudications) percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and declined by about 13 percent from fiscal years 2015 to 2017  ● The refusal rate for tourist and business visitor visas generally increased each year from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017  ● The vast majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (992,855 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (992,855 adjudications) ● The refusal rate for student and exchange visitor issuances decreased each year from fiscal years 2015 through 2017  visas peaked in fiscal year 2016, and slightly declined in fiscal year 2017  ● The vast majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (884,667 adjudications) 19% 10% 16% Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (884,667 adjudications) ● Generally, the refusal rates for temporary worker years 2012 through 2017  visas decreased from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Department of State officials noted, for example, that H-2A visas are not numerically limited by statute  They also stated that they believe U S  employers are increasingly less likely to hire workers without lawful status and are petitioning for lawfully admitted workers  ● In fiscal year 2017, temporary worker visas were most frequently refused because the applicant did not provide adequate documentation to the consular officer  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (330,117 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (330,117 adjudications) ● The refusal rates for transit and crewmember visas about 8 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (from about 295,000 to 320,000)  varied over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Specifically, issued C-1/D visas increased over the ● The majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were same time period, but the number of issued visas for the remaining visa types in this category have decreased  due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (166,187 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (166,187 adjudications) ● The refusal rates for foreign official and employee visas remained under 4 percent  ● In fiscal year 2017, foreign official and employee visas were most frequently refused because the applicant did not provide adequate documentation to the consular officer  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (68,580 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (68,580 adjudications) ● Generally, refusal rates for treaty trader and investor increased over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  visas increased slightly over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Issuances for E-3 visas nearly doubled from fiscal ● The majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were year 2012 through 2017, but comprise a small percentage of this category overall  due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of their intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (40,533 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (40,533 adjudications) ● Refusal rates for fiancé(e) and spouse visas were fluctuated over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017, but increased overall during this time period  relatively low during the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Most refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to inadequate documentation from the visa applicant, potentially indicating that such applications failed to include necessary documentation for the consular officer to ascertain whether the applicant was eligible to receive a visa at that time  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Nonimmigrant visas (NIV) are issued to foreign nationals such as tourists, business visitors, and students seeking temporary admission into the United States  The Department of State (State) is generally responsible for the adjudication of NIV applications, and manages the application process, including the consular officer corps and its functions at more than 220 U S  embassies and consulates (i e , visa-issuing posts) overseas  Depending on various factors, such as the particular NIV sought, the applicant’s background, and visa demand, State officials noted that the length of the visa adjudication process can vary from a single day to months  This appendix provides descriptive statistics of NIV adjudications, issuances, and refusals for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Specific details are shown in table 8 below  State data from fiscal years 2012 through 2016 indicate that NIV adjudications generally followed an annual cycle, ebbing during certain months during the fiscal year; however, adjudications in fiscal year 2017 departed slightly from this trend  Specifically, from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the number of NIV adjudications typically reached its highest peak in the summer months, as shown in table 9  For example, State officials noted that a summer peak is generally due to international students who are applying for their visas for the coming academic year  There are many NIVs, and for the purposes of this report, we have placed the majority of NIVs into one of seven groups  Table 10 includes the annual NIV adjudications, issuances, and refusal rates, for each visa group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants seeking to travel to the United States represent many different nationalities, but the countries of nationality with the most NIV adjudications have remained relatively consistent in recent years  Table 11 provides the top 25 countries of nationality for NIV adjudications for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants can apply for their NIVs at more than 220 visa-issuing U S  posts overseas  Table 12 describes the regions to which NIV applicants applied from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants can be refused a visa on a number of grounds of inadmissibility or other ineligibility under U S  immigration law and State policy  For the purposes of this report, we have grouped most of these grounds for refusal into one of seven categories, and group the remaining into a miscellaneous category, as shown in table 13  From January through October 2017, the administration took various executive actions establishing nationality-based entry restrictions for certain categories of foreign nationals from designated countries  This appendix supplements information included in this report to provide a more comprehensive presentation of changes to U S  immigration policy affecting nonimmigrant and immigrant entry into the United States, and outlines the legal standards applied, and precedent developed and relied upon, by federal courts in resolving challenges to the executive actions  In particular, it describes relevant aspects of the executive actions specifically addressed in this report—Executive Orders 13769 and 13780, both titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats—that imposed visa entry restrictions on certain countries’ nationals and included provisions addressing NIV screening and vetting, as well as other executive actions on immigration issued by the current administration  Furthermore, this appendix provides a detailed account of the interrelated challenges to these executive actions brought in the federal courts through June 2018  In summary, on March 6, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which instituted visa and refugee entry restrictions, and an accompanying memorandum addressed to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, calling for heightened screening and vetting of visa applications and other immigration benefits  EO 13780 stated that it is U S  policy to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and U S  Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)  Enforcement of sections 2(c) and 6(a) of EO 13780 which established visa entry restrictions for nationals of six countries of particular concern—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for a 90-day period, and suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days, was enjoined by federal district court orders issued in March 2017  On appeal, the U S  Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits generally upheld these decisions  Upon review by the U S  Supreme Court in June 2017, the injunction was partially lifted except with respect to foreign nationals who have bona fide ties to the United States Implementation of EO 13780 commenced on June 29, 2017  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats  This proclamation restricts entry into the United States of certain categories of foreign nationals from eight countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—for an indefinite period  Preliminary injunctions issued by the U S  District Courts for the Districts of Maryland (Maryland federal district court) and Hawaii (Hawaii federal district court) in October 2017 prohibited implementation of these visa entry restrictions except with respect to North Korean and Venezuelan nationals  On December 4, 2017, the U S  Supreme Court issued two orders staying these district court injunctions; and on January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for review of the December 22, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, which partially affirmed the Hawaii federal district court’s preliminary injunction  As of June 2018, these latest visa entry restrictions continue to be fully implemented consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2018, decision, which held that the President may lawfully establish nationality-based entry restrictions, and that Proclamation 9645 itself “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority ” The following sections describe these executive actions and related litigation in greater detail  On January 27, 2017, the President issued EO 13769, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which directed a review of information needs for adjudicating visas and other immigration benefits to confirm individuals seeking such benefits are who they claim to be, and are not security or public-safety threats  To temporarily reduce investigative burdens during the review period, the EO suspended U S  entry for nationals of seven countries of particular concern—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen  In addition, EO 13769 put USRAP on hold for 120 days and indefinitely barred admission of Syrian refugees  Shortly after its issuance, however, the EO faced numerous legal challenges in federal courts across the country involving various constitutional and statutory issues such as detainee applications for writs of habeas corpus, alleged religious or nationality-based discrimination, and the extent of the EO’s applicability to certain categories of foreign nationals, including U S  lawful permanent residents (LPR) and dual nationals holding passports issued by a listed country as well as another nation not subject to visa entry restrictions  On February 3, 2017, the Washington federal district court entered a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting enforcement of the EO’s entry restrictions  In rejecting the government’s argument that a TRO only cover the particular states at issue, the court reasoned that partial implementation would “undermine the constitutional imperative of ‘a uniform Rule of Naturalization’ and Congress’s instruction that the ‘immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly ’” On February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide injunction, thereby denying the government’s emergency motion for a stay of the Washington federal district court’s TRO pending appeal, because the government did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, or that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury  On March 6, 2017, however, the President issued EO 13780, which revoked and replaced EO 13769, and established revised restrictions on entry for nationals of the same countries of particular concern, except Iraq  On March 6, 2017, the President signed EO 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which revoked and replaced EO 13769 and put in place revised visa and refugee entry restrictions, and issued an accompanying memorandum calling for heightened screening and vetting of visa applications and other immigration benefits  In general, sections 2(c) and 6(a) of EO 13780 barred visa travel for nationals of six designated countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days, and all refugee admission for 120 days  On March 15, 2017, sections 2 and 6 of the EO were enjoined on statutory grounds (i e , based on potential violation of U S  immigration law) pursuant to the order of the Hawaii federal district court granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO  On March 16, 2017, the Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of visa entry restrictions on a nationwide basis with respect to nationals of the six listed countries  On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Maryland federal district court’s injunction on constitutional grounds (i e , based on potential violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U S  Constitution)  On June 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit generally affirmed the Hawaii federal district court’s ruling, but vacated the district court’s order to the extent it enjoined internal review procedures not burdening individuals outside the Executive Branch, therefore permitting the administration to conduct the internal reviews of visa information needs as directed in the EO  On June 14, 2017, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Director of National Intelligence, directing that sections 2 and 6 of EO 13780 were to be implemented 72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed  On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted, in part, the government’s application to stay the March 15 and 16 injunctions of the Hawaii and Maryland federal district courts, as generally upheld on May 25 and June 12 by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits  The Court explained that the administration may enforce visa and refugee travel restrictions under sections 2 and 6 except with respect to an individual who can “credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States ” In the case of a visa or refugee applicant who is the relative of a person in the United States, such foreign national would be exempt from entry restrictions provided the family connection with their U S  relative meets the “close familial relationship” standard  The Court further explained that a qualifying relationship with a U S  entity would have to be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, and not for the purpose of evading EO 13780  On June 29, 2017, the day that implementation of EO 13780 began, the State Department issued guidance providing that a close familial relationship exists for the parents, spouse, children, adult sons or daughters, sons and daughters-in-law, and siblings of a person in the United States, but not for such person’s grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law or other relatives  The State of Hawaii filed a motion with the Hawaii federal district court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the partial injunction in place after the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited application of travel restrictions to fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States  On July 13, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court ruled, among other things, that section 2 of the EO, generally barring travel to the United States for nationals of certain countries, does not apply to the grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of persons in the United States, who were initially excluded from the administration’s interpretation of “close family ” The government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court  On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the government’s motion seeking further clarification of its June 26 ruling, stayed the Hawaii federal district court’s order to the extent it included refugees covered by a formal assurance from a U S -based resettlement agency within the scope of the preliminary injunction, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and left unchanged the district court’s broader formulation of exempt “close family ” On September 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Hawaii federal district court’s definition of close family members who are not to be subjected to travel restrictions, and rejected the government’s argument that refugees who had undergone a stringent review process and been approved by U S -based resettlement agencies lack a bona fide relationship to the United States, thus allowing admission of such refugees  On September 11, 2017, the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined aspects of the Hawaii federal district court’s holding that would permit admission of certain refugees with formal assurances from a U S  resettlement entity  The next day, on September 12, 2017, the Supreme Court indefinitely stayed the Ninth Circuit’s September 7 ruling with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, thereby permitting the administration to suspend entry of such refugees  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats, which expanded the scope and duration of visa entry restrictions from six to eight countries, and from a 90-day to an indefinite period for the listed countries  On September 25, 2017, in light of the September 24 proclamation, the Supreme Court directed the parties to file briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the cases before it regarding EO 13780 are moot  On October 10, 2017, after receiving the parties’ supplemental briefs, the Supreme Court decided that because section 2(c) of EO 13780 expired on September 24, there was no live case or controversy; and without expressing a view on the merits, the Court vacated and remanded the Maryland case to the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to EO 13780  On October 24, 2017, consistent with its October 10 ruling, the Supreme Court also vacated and remanded the Hawaii case related to EO 13780 to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss it as moot  Consequently, after challenges to EO 13780 visa and refugee entry restrictions, as curtailed by the Supreme Court’s ruling of June 26, 2017, were rendered moot, litigation continued with respect to the President’s proclamation of September 24, 2017  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the Proclamation), Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats, which imposes certain conditional restrictions and limitations on entry into the United States of nationals of eight countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—for an indefinite period  According to the Proclamation, travel restrictions are tailored to each nation’s information sharing and identity management deficiencies based on standard immigration screening and vetting criteria established by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and are to remain in effect until such time as the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State determine that a country provides sufficient information for the United States to assess adequately whether its nationals pose a security or safety threat  On October 17, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court issued a TRO, on statutory grounds, enjoining on a nationwide basis the implementation and enforcement of travel restrictions provided for under the Proclamation, except with respect to North Korean or Venezuelan nationals  On the same day, the Maryland federal district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, primarily on constitutional grounds, thereby prohibiting implementation of visa entry restrictions nationwide, except for nationals of North Korea and Venezuela as well as other covered foreign nationals who lack a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States  On October 20, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court converted its October 17 TRO into a preliminary injunction, thereby continuing the nationwide prohibition on enforcement or implementation of the suspension on entry for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen  The district court did not stay its ruling or hold it in abeyance should an appeal be filed in the Ninth Circuit  On November 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted, in part, the government’s request for an emergency stay of the Hawaii federal district court’s preliminary injunction, thereby allowing visa entry restrictions to go into effect with respect to the nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen  However, consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 2017 ruling, the court ordered that those with a bone fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States not be subject to such travel restrictions  On November 20, 2017, the government petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the Hawaii federal district court, pending consideration and disposition of the government’s appeal from that injunction to the Ninth Circuit and, if that court affirms the injunction, pending filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court  On November 28, 2017, plaintiffs in the challenge to the Proclamation arising out of Hawaii asked that the Supreme Court deny the government’s request to lift the partial injunction left in place by the Ninth Circuit  On the same day, plaintiffs in the case arising out of Maryland requested that the Supreme Court not grant a stay of the federal district court’s preliminary injunction  In both cases, plaintiffs assert that the more expansive visa entry restrictions violate U S  immigration law; additionally, for the Maryland case, plaintiffs argue that such restrictions are unconstitutional as a form of discrimination based on national origin  On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court issued two orders staying the Maryland and Hawaii federal district courts’ orders of October 17 and 20 that preliminarily enjoined implementation of the Proclamation, pending decisions of the Ninth and Fourth Circuits in the government’s appeals, and of the Supreme Court regarding a petition for a writ of certiorari (if sought)  As a result, the Proclamation’s visa entry restrictions were permitted to go into full effect unless and until they are either enjoined by the courts of appeals and a writ of certiorari is not sought thereafter, or the Supreme Court either denies a petition for certiorari (thereby resulting in termination of the Supreme Court’s stay order) or grants such petition followed by a final injunction prohibiting current or future implementation of the Proclamation’s restrictions  The Supreme Court further noted its expectation that the courts of appeals will render decisions “with appropriate dispatch,” in light of both courts having decided to consider their respective cases on an expedited basis  On December 8, 2017, the Department of State announced that it began fully implementing the Proclamation, as permitted by the Supreme Court, at the opening of business at U S  embassies and consulates overseas  On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the Hawaii federal district court’s October 20 order enjoining enforcement of visa entry restrictions under the Proclamation, while limiting the preliminary injunction’s scope to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States  Without reaching plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the court of appeals concluded that the Proclamation exceeded the scope of authority delegated to the President by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in particular, sections 202(a)(1)(A) (immigrant visa nondiscrimination) and 212(f) (presidential suspension of, or imposition of restrictions on, alien entry), by deviating from statutory text, legislative history and prior executive practice; not including the requisite finding that entry of certain foreign nationals would be detrimental to U S  interests; and contravening the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas  However, the court stayed its decision, given that the Supreme Court’s December 4 order lifted the federal district courts’ injunctions pending not only review by the courts of appeals, but also “disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought ” On January 5, 2018, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the December 22, 2017, judgment of the Ninth Circuit which left in place the Hawaii federal district court injunction of the Proclamation’s visa entry restrictions for individuals with bona fide ties to the United States  On January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the government’s certiorari petition and will therefore consider, and issue an opinion on the merits of, the Ninth Circuit’s decision  On February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction granted by the Maryland federal district court on constitutional grounds, but stayed its decision pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case before the Supreme Court  The court of appeals found that “laintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President has openly and often expressed his desire” to bar the entry of Muslims into the United States  Therefore, the court concluded that, in light of the President’s official statements, the Proclamation likely violates the Establishment Clause as it “fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose,” and also goes against the basic principle that government is not to act with religious animus  On February 23, 2018, Fourth Circuit challengers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking for the Supreme Court to consolidate their case with the Court’s ongoing review of the Ninth Circuit decision  These petitioners requested that the Court additionally consider their argument that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States  On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted Fourth Circuit petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their certiorari petition  On April 10, 2018, the President issued a proclamation announcing that because Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet U S  baseline security standards, nationals of Chad will again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States  On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the President lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under INA § 212(f) (presidential suspension of, or imposition of restrictions on, alien entry), by issuing Proclamation No  9645, which established nationality-based visa entry restrictions applicable to categories of foreign nationals from eight (now seven) countries for an indefinite period  In addition, while three individual plaintiffs had standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to entry restrictions prohibiting their relatives from coming to the United States, the Court found the Proclamation to be legitimate on its face as a way to prevent entry of certain foreign nationals where the government determines there is insufficient information for visa vetting  As a result of the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2018, decision, which held that the establishment of nationality-based entry restrictions is a lawful exercise of the President’s broad discretion in matters of immigration and national security, the visa entry restrictions imposed on categories of foreign nationals from certain countries pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 continue to be fully implemented , as they have been since the Supreme Court’s December 4, 2017, orders staying the lower courts’ injunctions  On October 24, 2017, the same day the 120-day suspension of refugee admissions under EO 13780 expired, the President signed EO 13815, Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions program With Enhanced Vetting Capabilities, which resumed USRAP and directed that special measures be applied to certain categories of refugees posing potential threats to the security and welfare of the United States  On December 23, 2017, the Washington federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on aspects of EO 13815 (and its accompanying memorandum), thus prohibiting the administration from: (1) temporarily suspending admission of refugees from 11 previously identified countries of concern, and reallocating resources from the processing of their applications during the 90-day review period (except for those lacking a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States); and (2) indefinitely barring admission of, and application processing for, all following-to-join refugees  On January 5, 2018, the Washington federal district court denied the government’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s December 23, 2017, order temporarily halting enforcement of refugee entry restrictions that were to be implemented as part of the resumption of USRAP under the EO  Specifically, the government “ask the court to ‘modify its preliminary injunction to exclude from coverage refugee applicants who seek to establish a on the sole ground that they have received a formal assurance from a resettlement agency ’” In denying the government’s motion for reconsideration, the court relied on the September 7, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit which, among other things, rejected the notion that refugees with formal assurances from U S -based resettlement agencies do not meet the Supreme Court’s bona fide relationship standard  The court treated this Ninth Circuit ruling as binding precedent given that the Supreme Court’s indefinite stay of September 12 neither vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, nor provided any underlying reason(s) that would allow another court to discern its rationale  On January 9, 2018, the Washington federal district court also denied the government’s emergency motion for a stay of the court’s December 23, 2017, preliminary injunction, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit  On January 31, 2018, DHS announced additional security measures to prevent exploitation of USRAP  Specifically, these security measures include additional screening for certain nationals of high-risk countries, a more risk-based approach to administering USRAP, and a periodic review and update of the refugee high-risk countries list and selection criteria  Therefore, as of June 2018, while the administration has announced additional security measures to strengthen the integrity of USRAP, the Washington federal district court’s December 23, 2017, preliminary injunction of EO 13815 continues to: (1) prohibit implementation of the temporary suspension of admission, and reallocation of resources from processing applications, of refugees from 11 previously identified countries of concern; and (2) forbid enforcement of the indefinite bar on entry of following-to-join refugees  In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant Director), Colleen Corcoran, Eric Hauswirth, Thomas Lombardi, Amanda Miller, Sasan J  “Jon” Najmi, Erin O’Brien, Garrett Riba, and Dina Shorafa made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk). TANF Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and American Indian tribes. The basic block grant totals $16.5 billion per year. States are also required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.3 billion annually under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. Though TANF is best known for funding cash assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2017, expenditures on basic assistance totaled $7.1 billion—23% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. Basic assistance is often—but not exclusively—paid as cash. In addition to funding basic assistance, TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Some states also count expenditures in prekindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement. The TANF Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.2 million families, composed of 3.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in September 2018. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.3 million in that month. The assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family once thought of as the "typical" assistance family—one with an unemployed adult recipient—accounted for 32% of all families on the rolls in FY2016. Additionally, 31% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 38% of all TANF families were "child-only" and had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles) caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and ineligible noncitizen parents. Cash Assistance Benefits. TANF cash benefit amounts are set by states. In July 2017, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three ranged from $1,021 in New Hampshire to $170 in Mississippi. Only New Hampshire (at 60% of the federal poverty guidelines) had a maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family in excess of 50% of poverty-level income. Work Requirements. TANF's main federal work requirement is actually a performance measure that applies to the states. States determine the work rules that apply to individual recipients. TANF law requires states to engage 50% of all families and 90% of two-parent families with work-eligible individuals in work activities, though these standards can be reduced by "credits." Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% or 90% targets, and vary by state. In FY2017, states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 53.0% and a two-parent rate of 69.5%. In FY2017, two jurisdictions did not meet the all-family participation standard: Nevada and Guam. This is a reduction from FY2012, when 16 states did not meet that standard. In FY2017, nine jurisdictions did not meet the two-parent standard. States that do not meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant.

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



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

Report 1: This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant  It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy access to information and data  Appendix B presents a series of tables with state-level data  This report does not provide information on TANF program rules (for a discussion of TANF rules, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements , by Gene Falk)  On January 24, 2019, the President signed legislation ( P L  116-4 ) that funds TANF and related programs through June 30, 2019  The legislation permits states to receive their quarterly TANF grants for the 2 nd quarter (January through March) and 3 rd quarter (April through June) of FY2019  Additional legislation would be required to pay TANF grants in the final quarter (July through September) of FY2019  TANF programs are funded through a combination of federal and state funds  In FY2018, TANF has two federal grants to states  The bulk of the TANF funding is in a basic block grant to the states, totaling $16 5 billion for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Indian tribes  There is also a contingency fund available that provides extra federal funds to states that meet certain conditions  Additionally, states are required to expend a minimum amount of their own funds for TANF and TANF-related activities under what is known as the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement  States are required to spend at least 75% of what they spent in FY1994 on TANF's predecessor programs  The minimum MOE amount, in total, is $10 3 billion per year for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories  TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P L  104-193 )  A TANF basic block grant amount—both nationally and for each state—was established in the 1996 welfare reform law  The amount established in that law for the 50 states, District of Columbia, territories, and tribes was $16 6 billion in total  From FY1997 through FY2016, that amount remained the same  It was not adjusted for changes that occur over time, such as inflation, the size of the TANF assistance caseload, or changes in the poverty population  During this period, the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the block grant declined by one-third (33 1%)  Beginning with FY2017, the state family assistance grant was reduced by 0 33% from its historical levels to finance TANF-related research and technical assistance  The reduced block grant amount is $16 5 billion  Table 1 shows the state family assistance grant, in both nominal (actual) and real (inflation-adjusted) dollars for each year, FY1997 through FY2018  In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, the FY2018 block grant was 36% below its value in FY1997  Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2017  In FY2017, a total of $31 1 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs  Basic assistance—ongoing benefits to families to meet basic needs—represented 23% ($7 1 billion) of total FY2017 TANF and MOE dollars  TANF is a major contributor of child care funding  In FY2017, $5 billion (16% of all TANF and MOE funds) were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF)  TANF work-related activities (including education and training) were the third-largest TANF and MOE spending category at $3 3 billion, or 11% of total TANF and MOE funds  TANF also helps low-wage parents by helping to finance state refundable tax credits, such as state add-ons to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)  TANF and MOE expenditures on refundable tax credits in FY2017 totaled $2 8 billion, or 9% of total TANF and MOE spending  TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either have experienced or are at risk of experiencing child abuse or neglect, spending about $2 2 billion on such activities  TANF and MOE funds also help fund state prekindergarten (pre-K) programs, with total FY2017 expenditures for that category also at $2 5 billion  TANF and MOE funds are also used for short-term and emergency benefits and a wide range of other social services  For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Table B-1 and Table B-2   TANF law permits states to "reserve" unused funds without time limit  This permits flexibility in timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to "save" funds for unexpected occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters)  At the end of FY2017 (September 30, 2017, the most recent data currently available), a total of $5 1 billion of federal TANF funding remained neither transferred nor spent  However, some of these unspent funds represent monies that states had already committed to spend later  At the end of FY2017, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1 8 billion  At the end of FY2017, states had $3 3 billion of "unobligated balances " These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments  Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds by state  This number is not known  Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving only ongoing assistance   There is no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services  Assistance is defined as benefits provided to families to meet ongoing, basic needs  It is most often paid in cash  However, some states use TANF or MOE funds to provide an "earnings supplement" to working parents added to monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotments  These "earnings supplements" are paid separately from the regular TANF cash assistance program  Additionally, TANF MOE dollars are used to fund food assistance for immigrants barred from regular SNAP benefits in certain states  These forms of nutrition aid meet an ongoing need, and thus are considered TANF assistance  As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 24% of all TANF expenditures  Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving "assistance" are likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANF-funded benefit or service  Table 2 provides assistance caseload information  A total of 1 2 million families, composed of 3 1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in September 2018  The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2 3 million in that month  For state-by-state assistance caseloads, see Table B-4   Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving assistance from TANF or its predecessor program, from July 1959 to September 2017  The shaded areas of the figure represent months when the national economy was in recession  Though the health of the national economy has affected the trend in the cash assistance caseload, the long-term trend in receipt of cash assistance does not follow a classic countercyclical pattern  Such a pattern would have the caseload rise during economic slumps, and then fall again during periods of economic growth  Factors other than the health of the economy (demographic trends, policy changes) also have influenced the caseload trend  The figure shows two periods of sustained caseload increases: the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s and a second period from 1988 to 1994  The number of families receiving assistance peaked in March 1994 at 5 1 million families  The assistance caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001  In 2004, the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s  During the recent 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath, the caseload began to rise from 1 7 million families in August 2008, peaking in December 2010 at close to 2 0 million families  By September 2018, the assistance caseload had declined to 1 2 million families  Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state  Before PRWORA, the "typical" family receiving assistance has been headed by a single parent (usually the mother) with one or two children  That single parent has also typically been unemployed  However, over the past 20 years the assistance caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the composition of the rolls  Figure 3 shows the change in the size and composition of the assistance caseload under both AFDC (1988 and 1994) and TANF  In FY1988, an estimated 84% of AFDC families were headed by an unemployed adult recipient  In FY2016, families with an unemployed adult recipient represented 32% of all cash assistance families  This decline occurred, in large part, as the number of families headed by unemployed adult recipients declined more rapidly than other components of the assistance caseload  In FY1994, a monthly average of 3 8 million families per month who received AFDC cash assistance had adult recipients who were not working  In FY2016, a monthly average of 485,000 families per month had adult recipients or work-eligible individuals, with no adult recipient or work-eligible individual working  With the decline in families headed by unemployed adults, the share of the caseload represented by families with employed adults and "child only" families has increased  In FY2017, families with all adult recipients unemployed and families with employed adult recipients each represented 31% of all assistance families  The latter category includes families in "earnings supplement" programs separate from the regular TANF cash assistance program  "Child-only" families are those where no adult recipient receives benefits in their own right; the family receives benefits on behalf of its children  The share of the caseload that was child-only in FY2017 was 38%  In FY2017, families with a nonrecipient, nonparent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles) represented 14% of all assistance families  Families with ineligible, noncitizen adults or adults who have not reported their citizenship status made up 9% of the assistance caseload in that year  Families where the parent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the children received TANF made up 9% of all assistance families in FY2017  There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family  (There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all states do so ) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states  Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying larger cash benefits to larger families on the presumption that they have greater financial needs  The maximum monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e g , no earned or unearned income) and complies with program rules  Families with income other than TANF often are paid a reduced benefit  Moreover, some families are financially sanctioned for not meeting a program requirement (e g , a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit  Figure 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a single mother caring for two children (family of three) in July 2016  The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-parent family with two children  For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2017 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $1,201 per month in New Hampshire  The map shows a regional pattern to the maximum monthly benefit paid, with lower benefit amounts in the South than in other regions  Only New Hampshire (at 60% of the federal poverty guidelines) had a maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family in excess of 50% of poverty-level income  TANF's main federal work requirement is actually a performance measure that applies to the states, rather than individual recipients  States determine the work rules that apply to individual recipients  The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload meet standards of participation in work or activities—that is, a family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours  There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a state's caseload, requiring 90% of the state's two-parent caseload to meet participation standards  However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a "caseload reduction credit " The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each percentage point decline in a state's caseload  Additionally, under a regulatory provision, a state may get "extra" credit for caseload reduction if it spends more than required under the TANF MOE  Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% and 90% targets, and vary by state and by year  States that do not meet the TANF work participation standard are at risk of being penalized through a reduction in their block grant  However, penalties can be forgiven if a state claims, and the Secretary of HHS finds, that it had "reasonable cause" for not meeting the standard  Penalties can also be forgiven for states that enter into "corrective compliance plans," and subsequently meet the work standard  The 50% and 90% target standards that states face, as well as the caseload reduction credit, date back to the 1996 welfare reform law  However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P L  109-171 ) made several changes to the work participation rules effective in FY2007 The caseload reduction credit was changed to measure caseload reduction from FY2005, rather than the original law's FY1995  The work participation standards were broadened to include families receiving cash aid in "separate state programs " Separate state programs are programs run with state funds, distinct from a state's "TANF program," but with expenditures countable toward the TANF MOE  HHS was instructed to provide definition to the allowable TANF work activities listed in law  HHS was also required to define what is meant by a "work-eligible" individual, expanding the number of families that are included in the work participation calculation  States were required to develop plans and procedures to verify work activities  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P L  111-5 ), a law enacted in response to the sharp economic downturn of 2007-2009, held states "harmless" for caseload increases affecting the work participation standards for FY2009 through FY2011  It did so by allowing states to "freeze" caseload reduction credits at pre-recession levels through the FY2011 standards  HHS computes two work participation rates for each state that are then compared with the effective (after-credit) standard to determine if it has met the TANF work standard  An "all-families" work participation rate is computed and compared with the all-families effective standard (50% minus the state's caseload reduction credit)  HHS also computes a two-parent work participation rate that is compared with the two-parent effective standard (90% minus the state's caseload reduction credit)  Figure 5 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through FY2017  For the period FY2002 through FY2011, states achieved an average all-families work participation rate hovering around 30%  The work participation rate increased since then  In FY2016, it exceeded 50% for the first time since TANF was established  However, it is important to note that the increase in the work participation rate has not come from an increase in the number of recipients in regular TANF assistance programs who are either working or in job preparation activities  This increase stems mostly from states creating new "earnings supplement" programs that use TANF funds to aid working parents in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) or who have left the regular TANF assistance programs for work  Figure 6 shows which states did not meet the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2006 through FY2017  Before FY2007, the first year that DRA was effective, only a few jurisdictions did not meet TANF all-families work participation standards  However, in FY2007, 15 jurisdictions did not meet the all-families standard  This number declined to 9 in FY2008 and 8 in FY2009  In FY2012, despite the uptick in the national average work participation rate, 16 states did not meet the all-family standard, the largest number of states that did not meet their participation standards in any one year since the enactment of TANF  FY2012 was the year that ARRA's "freeze" of the caseload reduction credit expired, and states were generally required to meet higher standards than in previous years  The number of jurisdictions that did not meet the all-families standard declined over the FY2012 to FY2017 period  In FY2017, two jurisdictions did not meet the all-family participation standard: Nevada and Guam  In addition to meeting a work standard for all families, TANF also imposes a second standard—90%—for the two-parent portion of its cash assistance caseload  This standard can also be lowered by caseload reduction  Figure 7 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2006 through FY2017  However, the display on the table is more complex than that for reporting whether a state met or did not meet its "all family" rate  A substantial number of states have reported no two-parent families subject to the work participation standard  These states are denoted on the table with an "NA," indicating that the two-parent standard was not applicable to the state in that year  Before the changes made by the DRA were effective, a number of states had their two-parent families in separate state programs that were not included in the work participation calculation  When DRA brought families receiving assistance in separate state programs into the work participation rate calculations, a number of states moved these families into solely state-funded programs  These are state-funded programs with expenditures not countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement, and hence are outside of TANF's rules  For states with two-parent families in their caseloads, the table reports "Yes" for states that met the two-parent standard, and "No" for states that did not meet the two-parent standard  Of the 28 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their FY2017 TANF work participation calculation, 19 met the standard and 9 did not  Appendix A  Supplementary Tables Appendix B  State Tables


Report 2:  For example, the document that serves as direction for Forest Service personnel on how to enter into RACAs referred to an outdated financial system that was replaced in fiscal year 2013  Further, the manuals and handbooks for the RACA processes had no indication that they had been reviewed within the past 5 years  Forest Service policy requires routine review, every 5 years, of policies and procedures in its Directive System  According to Forest Service officials, a staff member from ORMS sends an e-mail to officials responsible for updating these policies and procedures  However, appropriate control activities have not been designed to reasonably assure that updates were made, reviewed, approved, and issued as needed for continued relevance and effectiveness  Without adequate descriptions of processes and related control activities in its manuals and handbooks over RACAs, the Forest Service is at risk that processes and related control activities may not be properly, consistently, and timely performed  Further, because it lacks a process and related controls for monitoring and reviewing the updates of the guidance and various process documents in the Directive System, the Forest Service is at risk that its policies and procedures may not provide appropriate agency-wide direction in achieving control objectives, particularly when financial systems change and old processes may no longer be applicable  SOPs and desk guides related to RACA processes were not in the Directive System and are not considered official Forest Service policy and procedures  Forest Service field staff responsible for various processes generally developed SOPs and desk guides to document day-to-day procedures for employees in carrying out RACA processes to supplement the manuals and handbooks  However, the SOPs and desk guides did not reference the applicable manuals and handbooks they supplemented  Further, the SOPs and desk guides did not provide descriptions of (1) review procedures for authorization, completeness, and validity of RACAs and related receivables; (2) detailed review procedures to be performed and by whom; (3) timing of review procedures; and (4) how to document the completion of the review procedures  Finally, SOPs and desk guides did not have evidence that responsible officials reviewed and approved them to authorize their use  These SOPs and desk guides are only available in the field office where these were developed, and if similar SOPs and desk guides were developed in other field offices, control activities and how they are performed could vary  We also noted that these SOPs and desk guides were not timely updated to reflect processes and systems currently in use  For example, there were many instances where the SOPs and desk guides referred to systems that the Forest Service no longer used  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should establish an organizational structure, assign responsibility, and delegate authority to achieve the entity’s objectives  Effective documentation assists in management’s design of internal control by establishing and communicating the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel  Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel and to achieve the entity’s objectives  Management assigns responsibility and delegates authority to key roles throughout the entity  As a result of the issues discussed above, the Forest Service is at risk that control activities may not be properly and consistently performed and its related control objectives may not be achieved efficiently and effectively  In addition, the Forest Service is at risk that knowledge for performing the control activities may be limited to a few personnel or lost altogether in the event of employee turnover  The Forest Service lacked control activities over the segregation of incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers for reimbursable agreements and any adjustments affecting the final disposition of related receivables  Field offices manage the majority of Forest Service projects, including authorizing the agreements and monitoring related collection  The Forest Service line officer for fire incident cooperative agreements and program managers for RACA at the RSA, unit, or field levels initiate and develop the terms of the agreements and are also responsible for any subsequent negotiation of the agreements  In the process of negotiating and settling costs, the line officer or program manager has the authority to cancel or change related receivables that they deemed uncollectible  For example, in a fire incident, the line officer at the region or field level is involved in both developing a Cost Share Agreement and after the fire incident has ended, negotiating the Cost Settlement Package with parties involved in the agreement to determine the final settlement amount that the Forest Service will be reimbursed for expenses paid in suppressing the fire incident  Therefore, the line officer is responsible for initiating the Cost Share Agreement, modifying the Cost Settlement Package, and changing or canceling the related receivable, which represent conflicting duties  We also found that the Forest Service did not have any mitigating controls, such as independent approval of any adjustments affecting the final disposition of receivables, to mitigate the risk of these incompatible duties  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks  Segregation of duties contributes to the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of control activities  To achieve segregation of key functions, management can divide responsibilities among different people to reduce the risk of error, misuse, or fraud  This may include separating the responsibilities for authorizing or approving transactions, processing and recording them, and reviewing the transactions so that no one individual controls all key aspects of a transaction or event  Forest Service officials stated they did not consider segregating the conflicting duties related to reimbursable agreements because these line officers and program managers were most familiar with the terms of the agreement and the activities performed  However, a lack of adequate segregation of conflicting duties or proper monitoring and review of conflicting duties for receivables from reimbursable agreements could result in receivables not being collected, and an increased risk of fraud  The Forest Service’s processes and related control activities over review of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed to reasonably assure optimum utilization of funds and were inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy  Further, Forest Service manuals and handbooks related to the review of unliquidated obligations did not clearly describe control activities and were not timely reviewed by management  The Forest Service reported unliquidated obligations of approximately $2 6 billion and $2 5 billion in its financial statements as of September 30, 2015, and 2016, respectively  In fiscal year 2016, the Forest Service deobligated about $319 million of its unliquidated obligations from prior years  The Forest Service’s procedures related to the review of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed and were inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy  In accordance with USDA Departmental Regulation (Regulation 2230-001) and related Forest Service policy, the Forest Service identifies and reviews unliquidated obligations that have been inactive for at least 12 months to determine whether delivery or performance of goods or services is still expected to occur  Once a determination has been made that an unliquidated obligation can be deobligated, program or procurement personnel are to notify finance personnel, in writing, within 5 days of the determination to process the deobligation  Within 15 days of receipt of the written notification, the unliquidated obligations are to be adjusted in the financial management system  The Forest Service CFO is then to be notified in writing that the deobligation was processed  Within 1 month of the close of each quarter, the Forest Service CFO is to submit to USDA’s Associate CFO for Financial Operations a certification stating that the Forest Service has performed reviews of its unliquidated obligations and taken appropriate actions, such as promptly deobligating an unliquidated obligation that is no longer needed  However, the Forest Service’s quarterly certifications are inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy because the months included in each quarterly review do not line up with the months outlined in policy  For example, as shown in table 1, based on policy the certification due on October 31, covers the months July through September  However in practice, the certification that the Forest Service prepared for October 31 covers May through July  As a result, the review and certification for August and September would be delayed an entire quarter  According to Forest Service officials, it takes considerable time to produce accurate unliquidated obligations reports from USDA’s financial system and then distribute them to field offices  Therefore, there is not sufficient time for the field offices to review and deobligate amounts not needed from the unliquidated obligations balances to meet USDA’s certification timing and requirements  However, the Forest Service has not developed other processes and control activities that could help meet USDA and Forest Service policy and reasonably assure that unliquidated obligations are reviewed timely and appropriate actions are taken  As a result, there is an increased risk that the Forest Service may not achieve its control objectives of optimum utilization of funds and timely adjustments of obligated balances  The Forest Service’s process and related control activities over its review of unliquidated obligations and resulting certifications were not adequately described in manuals and handbooks in its Directive System  Further, the manuals and handbooks were not timely reviewed and updated to reflect processes and systems currently in use  In accordance with the Forest Service’s Directive System, policies are documented in its manuals while procedures for performing specialized activities are documented in its handbooks  However, we found that the Forest Service’s processes and related control activities for reviewing unliquidated obligations were not adequately described and documented in such manuals and handbooks  Although parts of the applicable section of the handbook referred to procedures, there were no detailed descriptions of the processes, and only references to objectives of the procedures for reviewing unliquidated obligations were listed  For example, in identifying unliquidated obligations for review, the narrative description of the procedures in the handbook states that the responsible obligating official must review each selected unliquidated obligation to determine whether (1) delivery or performance of goods or services has occurred or is expected to occur and (2) accounting corrections to the obligation data in the accounting system are necessary  The handbook also refers to an unliquidated obligations report listing the unliquidated obligations that must be reviewed  The narrative does not provide any detailed procedures that obligating officials or responsible personnel need to perform, how to perform those procedures, and how those control activities are to be documented  The guidance in the handbook was supplemented by two desk guides  However, the desk guides are outside the Forest Service’s Directive System and, as previously noted, the Directive System is the only place where the Forest Service’s policy and procedures are issued  In addition, these desk guides did not reference the applicable guidance in the Directive System that they were supplementing  Further, the process and related control activities for adjusting unliquidated obligations within 15 days of receipt of written notification, as stated in USDA’s policy, were not described in either the handbooks or the desk guides  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks to achieve an effective internal control system  Management’s design of internal control establishes and communicates the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel  Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel  Further, the standards also explain that management clearly document internal control in a manner that allows documentation to be readily available and that documentation be properly managed and maintained  In addition, manuals and handbooks for processes related to review and certification of unliquidated obligations had no evidence that they had been reviewed within the past 5 years for ongoing relevance and effectiveness  According to a Forest Service manual, all service-wide directives, except interim directives, shall be reviewed at least once every 5 years  The Forest Service does not have an effective process in place to monitor the reviews and any updates of the manuals and handbooks in its Directive System  As previously discussed, while ORMS sends an e- mail requesting that the applicable officials review and update the guidance in the manuals and handbooks, there is no follow-up process to help ensure that documents were reviewed and updated as needed  Because the Forest Service’s process and related control activities over its review and certification of unliquidated obligations were not adequately described in its manuals and handbooks, the Forest Service is at risk that its control activities may not reasonably assure that control objectives provide (1) optimum utilization of funds and (2) for unliquidated obligations that are no longer needed to be efficiently and effectively deobligated and made available for other program needs  Adequate processes and related control activities over the Forest Service’s budgetary resources are critical in reasonably assuring that these resources are timely and effectively available for its mission operations, including fire suppression  However, we identified deficiencies in the Forest Service’s processes and related controls over allotments, unobligated no-year funds from prior years, administrative control of funds, fund transfers, reimbursable agreements, and available funds from deobligation of unliquidated obligations  Deficiencies ranged from a lack of processes to control activities that were not properly designed, resulting in an increased risk that Forest Service funds may not be effectively and efficiently monitored and used  In addition, the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks, which provide the directives for the areas we reviewed, had not been reviewed by management in accordance with the Forest Service’s 5-year review policy  Further, Forest Service staff prepared SOPs and desk guides that documented control activities, but they were not issued as official policy and had not been reviewed and approved by responsible officials  As a result, the Forest Service is at increased risk that the control activities may not be consistently performed across the agency and that the guidance in the SOPs and desk guides may not comply with agency policy in the Directive System  To improve internal controls over the Forest Service’s budget execution processes, we are making the following 11 recommendations: The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) revise its process and (2) design, document, and implement related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are properly used for the purposes specifically designated  (Recommendation 1) The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) develop a process and (2) design, document, and implement related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated no-year funds from prior years are reviewed for continuing need  (Recommendation 2) The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) design, document, and implement a comprehensive system for administrative control of funds and (2) submit it for review and approval by USDA before issuance, as required by the USDA Budget Manual  (Recommendation 3) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement control activities over the preparation and approval of a fire suppression fund transfers strategy, to specify all appropriate factors to be considered in developing and documenting the strategy, and incorporate these control activities into the Directive System  (Recommendation 4) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure efficient and effective operations and timely and reliable reporting of reimbursable receivables related to fire incident cooperative agreements, and incorporate them in the Directive System  (Recommendation 5) The Chief of the Forest Service should update the RACA manuals and handbooks to adequately describe the processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs to reasonably assure that staff will know (1) how and when to perform processes and control activities and (2) how to document their performance  (Recommendation 6) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement segregation of duties or mitigating control activities over reimbursable agreements and any adjustments affecting the final disposition of related receivables  (Recommendation 7) The Chief of the Forest Service should modify, document, and implement control activities consistent with USDA and Forest Service policy to reasonably assure that unliquidated obligations are reviewed timely and appropriate actions are taken  (Recommendation 8) The Chief of the Forest Service should adequately describe the processes and related control activities for unliquidated obligations review and certification processes in manuals and handbooks within the Directive System  (Recommendation 9) The Chief of the Forest Service should develop, document, and implement a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that manuals and handbooks for allotments, reimbursable agreements, and review of unliquidated obligations are reviewed and updated every 5 years, consistent with Forest Service policy  (Recommendation 10) The Chief of the Forest Service should develop, document, and implement a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that SOPs and desk guides (1) clearly refer to guidance in the Directive System for allotments, reimbursable agreements, and review of unliquidated obligations and (2) are reviewed and approved by responsible officials prior to use  (Recommendation 11) We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Forest Service stated that it generally agreed with the report and that it has made significant progress to address the report’s findings  Specifically, the Forest Service stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address our concerns with allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular No  A-11  Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service  In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9869 or khana@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 members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Forest Service properly designed control activities over (1) allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations; (2) reimbursables and related collections; and (3) unliquidated obligations  We reviewed the Forest Service’s process documents and control activities, policies and procedures from its manual and handbooks in its Directive System, and other guidance in the form of standard operating procedures (SOP) and desk guides to obtain an understanding of internal controls at the Forest Service related to our three objectives  We reviewed the control activities that the Forest Service identified to determine whether the activities would achieve the control objectives that the service identified and whether the activities were consistent with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We also reviewed recent relevant GAO and U S  Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General reports to obtain background information related to the Forest Service’s budget execution processes  We evaluated the design of the Forest Service’s control activities based on data for fiscal year 2016  To address our first objective, we reviewed Forest Service process documents related to allotments and budget authority to obtain an understanding of control activities over the allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any related fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations  The process documents included a list of control objectives and related control activities that the Forest Service had used to assess its internal controls  We also reviewed the related guidance in appendix H to Office of Management and Budget Circular No  A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget for Administrative Control of Funds, to identify requirements that agencies must meet to ascertain whether their controls over funds management are properly designed  We interviewed key officials from the Forest Service’s Strategic Planning, Budget and Accountability Office to gain an understanding of their processes for allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations for wildland fire suppression activities, including how each of their risk assessments were performed and their plans to mitigate the risks  We reviewed and analyzed the processes documented in the manuals and handbooks collectively referred to as directives to determine whether the processes and control activities were designed to achieve the Forest Service’s stated objectives  Specifically, we examined the Forest Service’s control activities to determine whether these sufficiently communicated the procedures to be performed and the documentation to be prepared  We also reviewed USDA Budget Manual to determine whether Forest Service guidance was consistent with USDA’s requirements for all of its component agencies, specifically requirements related to the administrative control of funds  To address our second objective, we reviewed the Forest Service’s policies, procedures, and other documentation and interviewed agency officials to develop an understanding of its processes related to reimbursable agreements and related collection activities  We first identified, through interviews with Forest Service officials, the different kinds of reimbursable agreements that the Forest Service enters into with other USDA components, other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities to carry out its mission for the benefit of the public  Two distinct types of reimbursable agreements include (1) fire incident cooperative agreements and (2) reimbursable and advanced collection agreements  We reviewed Forest Service process documents and templates related to these two types of reimbursable agreements provided to obtain an understanding of control activities over reimbursable processes  We reviewed the list of control objectives and related control activities that the Forest Service identified to determine whether the control activities were designed to achieve the applicable control objectives  To address our third objective, we reviewed the Forest Service’s policies, procedures, and other documentation related to and interviewed agency officials about unliquidated obligations to develop an understanding of the Forest Service’s review and certification processes for unliquidated obligations balances  We reviewed the Forest Service’s control activities related to its process for reviewing unliquidated obligations to obtain an understanding of control activities around its process and to determine whether the control activities were designed to achieve the applicable control objectives  Based on the results of our evaluation of the Forest Service’s design of internal control activities over the budget execution processes, we did not evaluate the implementation of the control activities or whether they were operating as designed  While our audit objectives focused on certain control activities related to (1) allotments of budgetary resources, the Forest Service’s system for administrative control of funds, and related fund transfers; (2) reimbursables and related collections for reimbursable agreements; and (3) unliquidated obligations, we did not evaluate all control activities and other components of internal control  If we had done so, additional deficiencies may or may not have been identified that could impair the effectiveness of the control activities evaluated as part of this audit  We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides the overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal control  Internal control represents an agency’s plans, methods, policies, and procedures used to fulfill its mission, strategic plan, goals, and objectives  Internal control is a process by an entity’s oversight body, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the entity will be achieved  When properly designed, implemented, and operating effectively, it provides reasonable assurance that the following objectives are achieved: (1) effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (2) reliability of internal and external reporting, and (3) compliance with applicable laws and regulations  Internal control is not one event, but a series of actions that occur throughout an entity’s operations  The five components of internal control are as follows: Control Environment - The foundation for an internal control system that provides the discipline and structure to help an entity achieve its objectives  Risk Assessment - Assesses the risks facing the entity as it seeks to achieve its objectives and provides the basis for developing appropriate risk responses  Control Activities - The actions management establishes through policies and procedures to achieve objectives and respond to risks in the internal control system, which includes the entity’s information system  Information and Communication - The quality information management and personnel communicate and use to support the internal control system  Monitoring - Activities management establishes and operates to assess the quality of performance over time and promptly resolve the findings of audits and other reviews  An effective internal control system has each of the five components of internal control effectively designed, implemented, and operating with the components operating together in an integrated manner  In this audit, we assessed the design of control activities at the Forest Service related to its (1) allotments of budgetary resources and any related fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations, (2) reimbursables and related collections, and (3) review of unliquidated obligations  In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made key contributions to this report: Roger Stoltz (Assistant Director), Meafelia P  Gusukuma (Auditor-in-Charge), Tulsi Bhojwani, Cory Mazer, Sabrina Rivera, and Randy Voorhees 

ground_truth: The Forest Service, an agency within USDA, performs a variety of tasks as steward of 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands. Its budget execution process for carrying out its mission includes (1) allotments, which are authorizations by an agency to incur obligations within a specified amount, and (2) unliquidated obligations, which represent budgetary resources that have been committed but not yet paid. Deobligation refers to an agency's cancellation or downward adjustments of previously incurred obligations, which may result in funds that may be available for reobligation. GAO was asked to review the Forest Service's internal controls over its budget execution processes. This report examines the extent to which the Forest Service properly designed control activities over (1) allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations; (2) reimbursables and related collections; and (3) review and certification of unliquidated obligations. GAO reviewed the Forest Service's policies, procedures, and other documentation and interviewed agency officials. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Forest Service received discretionary no-year appropriations of $5.1 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively. It is critical for the Forest Service to manage its budgetary resources efficiently and effectively. While the Forest Service had processes over certain of its budget execution activities, GAO found the following internal control deficiencies: Budgetary resources . The purpose statute requires that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated. The Forest Service did not have an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts were used as designated. In fiscal year 2017, GAO issued a legal opinion that the Forest Service had failed to comply with the purpose statute with regard to a $65 million line-item appropriation specifically provided for the purpose of acquiring aircraft for the next-generation airtanker fleet. Further, the Forest Service lacked a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated no-year appropriation balances from prior years were reviewed for their continuing need; did not have a properly designed system for administrative control of funds, which keeps obligations and expenditures from exceeding limits authorized by law; and had not properly designed control activities for fund transfers to its Wildland Fire Management program. These deficiencies increase the risk that the Forest Service may make budget requests in excess of its needs. Reimbursable agreements . To carry out its mission, the Forest Service enters into reimbursable agreements with agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities. The Forest Service (1) did not have adequately described processes and related control activities in manuals and handbooks for its reimbursable agreement processes and (2) lacked control activities related to segregating incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers. For example, line officers may be responsible for initiating cost sharing agreements, modifying cost settlement packages, and changing or canceling the related receivable, which represent incompatible duties. As a result, programs and resources may not be protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Unliquidated obligations . The Forest Service's processes and control activities over the review and certification of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed to reasonably assure the best use of funds and that unliquidated obligations would be efficiently and effectively deobligated and made available for other program needs. Further, the current process, as designed, was inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy. In addition, the Forest Service's manuals and handbooks, which provide directives for the areas that GAO reviewed, had not been reviewed by management in accordance with the Forest Service's 5-year review policy. Further, standard operating procedures and desk guides prepared by staff to supplement the manuals and handbooks were not issued as directives and therefore were not considered official policy. This increases the risk that control activities may not be consistently performed across the agency. GAO is making 11 recommendations to improve processes and related internal control activities over the management of the Forest Service's budgetary resources, reimbursable receivables and collections, and its process for reviewing unliquidated obligations. The Forest Service generally agreed with the report and stated that it has made significant progress to address the report findings.