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



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

Report 1: GPRAMA significantly enhances GPRA, the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve longstanding performance and management problems in the federal government and provide greater accountability for results  Congress passed GPRAMA in 2010 to address a number of persistent federal performance challenges, including focusing attention on crosscutting issues and enhancing the use and usefulness of performance information  OMB and agencies are to establish various government-wide and agency-specific performance goals, in line with GPRAMA requirements or OMB guidance  These include the following: Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: CAP goals are crosscutting and include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of policy areas as well as goals for management improvements needed across the government  OMB is to coordinate with agencies to establish CAP goals at least every 4 years  OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals  Strategic objectives: A strategic objective is the outcome or impact the agency is intending to achieve through its various programs and initiatives  Agencies establish strategic objectives in their strategic plans and may update the objectives during the annual update of performance plans  Agency priority goals (APG): At the agency level, every 2 years, GPRAMA requires that the heads of certain agencies, in consultation with OMB, identify a subset of agency performance goals as APGs  These goals are to reflect the agencies’ highest priorities  They should be informed by the CAP goals as well as consultations with relevant congressional committees and other interested parties  In a schedule established by GPRAMA, OMB and agencies are to develop and publish new CAP goals, APGs, and strategic plans (with updated strategic objectives) in February 2018  GPRAMA and related OMB guidance require agencies to regularly assess their progress in achieving goals and objectives through performance reviews  Data-driven reviews: Agency leaders and managers are to use regular meetings, at least quarterly, to review data and drive progress toward key performance goals and other management-improvement priorities  For each APG, GPRAMA requires agency leaders to conduct reviews at least quarterly to assess progress toward the goal, determine the risk of the goal not being met, and develop strategies to improve performance  Similarly, the Director of OMB, with relevant parties, is to review progress toward each CAP goal  Strategic reviews: OMB guidance directs agency leaders to annually assess progress toward achieving each strategic objective using a broad range of evidence  GPRAMA establishes certain senior leadership positions and a council, as described below  Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads are to designate a senior executive within the agency as the PIO  The PIO reports directly to the COO and assists the agency head and COO with various performance management activities  Goal leaders: Goal leaders are responsible for developing strategies to achieve goals, managing execution, and regularly reviewing performance  GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and agency performance goals, including APGs  OMB guidance directs agencies to designate goal leaders for strategic objectives  Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government and achieve the CAP goals  The PIC is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes agency PIOs from each of the 24 CFO Act agencies as well as other PIOs and individuals designated by the chair  Among its responsibilities, the PIC is to work to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  GPRAMA includes several provisions related to providing the public and Congress with information, as described below  Performance gov: GPRAMA calls for a single, government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency performance information  Among other things, the website— implemented by OMB as Performance gov—is to include (1) quarterly progress updates on CAP goals and APGs; (2) an inventory of all federal programs; and (3) agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports  Reporting burden: GPRAMA establishes a process to reexamine the usefulness of certain existing congressional reporting requirements  Specifically, GPRAMA requires an annual review (including congressional consultation), based on OMB guidance, of agencies’ reporting requirements to Congress  Additionally, OMB is to include in the budget a list of plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative and may submit legislation to eliminate or consolidate such plans or reports  In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts that are intended to improve government performance  The 2018 Budget Blueprint states that the President’s Management Agenda will seek to improve the federal government’s effectiveness by using evidence-based approaches, balancing flexibility with accountability to better achieve results, improving mission support functions, and developing and monitoring critical performance measures  In addition, OMB issued several memoranda detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden  A number of these efforts, which are to leverage GPRAMA and our past work, have the potential to further progress in addressing key governance challenges  As part of reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies are developing government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, that are to leverage various GPRAMA provisions  For example, an April 2017 memorandum states that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reform plans using CAP goals, APGs, annual strategic reviews, and Performance gov  The government-wide plan also is to include crosscutting reform proposals, such as merging agencies or programs that have similar missions  To that end, the memorandum states agencies should consider our reports, including our work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as inspectors general reports  Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve, such as those related to ensuring public health, providing homeland security, and promoting economic development, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector  For more than 2 decades, we have reported on agencies’ missed opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective implementation of GPRA and, more recently, GPRAMA  Our reports also have demonstrated that collaboration across agencies is critical to address issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication as well as many of the areas on our High-Risk List  Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: Since 2011, our annual reports have identified 133 crosscutting areas that require the coordinated effort of more than one federal organization, level of government, or sector  For instance, for the area of federal grant awards, we found in January 2017 that the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service, Food and Nutrition Service, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had not established guidance and formal processes to ensure their grant-management staff review applications for potential duplication and overlap among grants in their agencies before awarding  We recommended that these agencies do so, and they agreed  As of August 2017, these agencies had taken several actions to address the recommendation  For example, the Department of the Interior (Interior) provided documentation showing that the Fish and Wildlife Service now requires discretionary grant applicants to provide a statement that addresses whether there is any overlap or duplication of proposed projects or activities to be funded by the grant  Fish and Wildlife also updated its guidance to grant awarding offices instructing them to perform a potential overlap and duplication review of all selected applicants prior to award  Our Action Tracker provides details on the status of actions from our annual reports  Within the 133 crosscutting areas, since 2011 we have identified 315 targeted actions where opportunities exist to better manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, including 29 new actions in our most recent report issued in April 2017  We found that the executive branch and Congress addressed 145 (46 percent) of the 315 actions  For example, in November 2014, we recommended that the U S  Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing; better leverage their resources; and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap that we identified  In response to this recommendation, the two agencies signed a formal policy document to govern their coordination in May 2015  This policy document outlined procedures for determining jurisdictional authority for recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items  Specifically, the procedures clarified that upon receiving notice of a possible defect, the agency receiving such notice shall determine whether the item properly falls within its jurisdiction, and if not, initiate discussions to determine the appropriate jurisdiction  These new procedures should help the agencies share information and leverage each other’s resources so they can better ensure that recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items are fully regulated  However, more work is needed on the remaining 170 actions (54 percent) that have not been fully addressed  For example, in July 2016, we reported that four federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data on sexual violence, which differ in target population, terminology, measurements, and methodology  We found that data collection efforts use 23 different terms to describe sexual violence  Data collection efforts also differed in how they categorized particular acts of sexual violence, the context in which data were collected, data sources, units of measurement, and time frames  We recommended that OMB convene an interagency forum to better manage fragmentation of efforts to collect sexual violence data  In commenting on that report, OMB stated it would consider implementing the action in the future but did not believe it was the most effective use of resources at that time, in part because the agencies were not far enough along in their research  In response, we stated that given the number of federal data collection efforts, the range of differences across them, and the potential for causing confusion, it would be beneficial for agencies to discuss these differences and determine whether they are, in fact, necessary  As of July 2017, OMB had not provided an update on the status of this recommendation  High-Risk List: Since the early 1990s, our high-risk program has focused attention on government operations with greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or that are in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges  As of February 2017, there were 34 high-risk areas covering a wide range of issues including human capital management, modernizing the U S  financial regulatory system, and ensuring the security of federal information systems and cyber critical infrastructure  Many of these high- risk areas require a coordinated response from more than one branch of government, agency, or sector  In the time between our 2015 and 2017 High-Risk Updates, many of these high-risk areas on our list demonstrated solid progress  During that period, 15 high-risk areas fully met at least one of the five criteria required for removal from the High-Risk List  In many cases, progress was possible through the joint efforts of Congress and leadership and staff in agencies  For example, Congress passed over a dozen laws following our 2015 High-Risk Update to help address high-risk issues  In addition, in 2017, we removed one high-risk area on managing terrorism-related information, because significant progress had been made to strengthen how intelligence on terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement is shared among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private sector partners  Despite this progress, continued oversight and attention is also warranted given the issue’s direct relevance to homeland security as well as the constant evolution of terrorist threats and changing technology  Our February 2017 High-Risk Update also highlighted a number of long- standing high-risk areas that require additional attention  We also added three new crosscutting areas to incorporate the management of federal programs that serve tribes and their members, the government’s environmental liabilities, and the 2020 decennial census  Based on our body of work on federal programs that serve tribes and their members, we concluded that federal agencies had (1) ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs and (2) inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the development of Indian energy resources  For example, we identified numerous challenges facing Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), in administering education and health care services  We concluded that these challenges put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk  In May 2017, we issued two additional reports on accountability for school construction and safety at schools funded by BIE  Although these agencies have taken some actions to address recommendations we made related to Indian programs, about 50 recommendations have yet to be fully resolved  We are monitoring federal efforts to address the unresolved recommendations  We also are reviewing IHS’s workforce, and tribal nations’ management and use of their energy resources  Many of the crosscutting areas highlighted by our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and designated as high-risk would benefit from enhanced collaboration among the federal agencies involved in them  GPRAMA establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance  Our survey results and past work demonstrate that agencies continue to face difficulties when working together on crosscutting issues, but also that implementing certain GPRAMA requirements can have a positive effect on collaboration  An item related to coordination in our survey of federal managers is statistically significantly lower in 2017, relative to our previous survey in 2013 and our initial survey in 1997  In 2017, an estimated 43 percent of managers agreed that they use information obtained from performance measurement to a great or very great extent when coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations (compared to an estimated 50 percent in 2013 and an estimated 57 percent in 1997)  Moreover, our past work has found that agencies face a variety of challenges when working across organizational boundaries to deliver programs and improve performance  For example, our work has found that interagency groups have, at times, encountered difficulty clarifying roles and responsibilities or developing shared outcomes and performance measures  In contrast, our past work demonstrates that implementing GPRAMA provisions can improve collaboration  For example, in May 2016, we found that OMB and the PIC updated the governance structure for CAP goals to include both agency-level and Executive Office of the President goal leaders and held regular, senior-level reviews on CAP goal progress  Moreover, CAP goal teams told us that the CAP goal designation increased leadership attention and improved interagency collaboration on their crosscutting issues  Furthermore, our prior work has found that priority goals and related data-driven reviews have also been used to help manage crosscutting issues and enhance collaboration  Various GPRAMA requirements are aimed at improving agencies’ coordination of efforts to address crosscutting issues  As with our 2013 survey, our 2017 survey continues to show that CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews—also called quarterly performance reviews (QPR)—are associated with reported higher levels of collaboration with internal and external stakeholders  For example, our 2017 survey data indicate that about half of federal managers (an estimated 54 percent) reported they were somewhat or very familiar with CAP goals  Among these individuals, those who viewed their programs as contributing to CAP goals to a great or very great extent (36 percent) were more likely to report collaborating outside their program to a great or very great extent to help achieve CAP goals (62 percent), as shown in figure 2  Our analysis shows a similar pattern exists for APGs and QPRs  Our past work also has highlighted ways in which OMB and agencies could better implement GPRAMA’s crosscutting provisions—many of which have been addressed  A continued focus on fully and effectively implementing these provisions will be important as OMB and agencies establish new CAP goals and APGs, and assess progress toward them through related QPRs  Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: In May 2012 and June 2013, we found that OMB had not always identified relevant agencies and program activities as contributors to the initial set of CAP goals  OMB took actions in response to our recommendations to include relevant contributors  Our most recent review, in May 2016, found that all relevant contributors had been identified for a subsequent set of CAP goals  In that report, we also found that OMB and the PIC had improved implementation of the CAP goals, in part, by helping agencies build their capacity to contribute to implementing the goals  Appendix II summarizes our past recommendations related to GPRAMA and the actions agencies have taken to address them  Agency priority goals (APGs): In April 2013, we found that agencies did not fully explain the relationship between their APGs and crosscutting efforts  Identify contributors: Similar to OMB’s responsibilities with the CAP goals, agencies are to identify the various organizations and programs that contribute to each of their performance goals, including APGs  We found that agencies identified internal contributors for their APGs, but did not list external contributors in some cases  We recommended that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by providing complete information about the organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities—both within and external to the agency— that contribute to each APG  In response, in April 2015, OMB asked agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and other activities contributing to their 2014-2015 APGs  Based on an analysis of the final quarterly updates for those APGs, published in December 2015, we found that agencies made progress in identifying external organizations and programs for their APGs  Describe how agency goals contribute to CAP goals: Agencies generally did not identify how their APGs contributed to CAP goals  We recommended that OMB direct agencies to describe in their performance plans how the agency’s performance goals—including APGs—contribute to any of the CAP goals as required by GPRAMA  In response, in July 2013, OMB updated its guidance directing agencies to include a list of the CAP goals to which the agency contributes and explain the agency’s contribution to them in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports  Data-driven reviews: For their data-driven reviews of agency priority goals, agencies are to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel within and outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each goal  However, in February 2013, we found that most Performance Improvement Officers (PIO) we surveyed (16 of 24) indicated that there was little to no involvement in these reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  We recommended that OMB and the PIC help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their APGs  OMB staff told us that they generally concurred with the recommendation, but believed it would not always be appropriate to regularly include external representatives in agencies’ data-driven reviews, which they considered to be internal management meetings  In a subsequent review, we found in July 2015 that PIOs at 21 of the 22 agencies we surveyed said that their data-driven reviews had a positive effect on collaboration among officials from different offices or programs within the agency  Despite the positive effects, most agency PIOs (17) indicated that there continued to be little to no involvement in the reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  In May 2016, OMB and PIC staff reported that, in response to our earlier recommendation, they were working with agencies to identify examples where agencies included representatives from outside organizations in data-driven reviews, and to identify promising practices based on those experiences  PIC staff told us they would disseminate any promising practices identified through the PIC Internal Reviews Working Group and other venues  In August 2017, OMB staff told us they plan to hold a summit with agencies later in the year to discuss implementing various performance management requirements, which could include agencies highlighting experiences and promising practices related to involving external officials in their data-driven reviews  We continue to believe data- driven reviews should include any relevant contributors from outside organizations and will continue to monitor progress  Despite the important role priority goals and related reviews can play in addressing crosscutting issues and enhancing collaboration, OMB recently removed the priority status of the current sets of priority goals  According to OMB staff, removing the priority designation from CAP goals and APGs returned them to regular performance goals, which are not subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of those reviews on Performance gov  In a June 2017 memorandum, OMB stated that CAP goals and APGs are intended to focus efforts toward achieving the priorities of current political leadership, and therefore reporting on the priority goals of the previous administration on Performance gov was discontinued for the remainder of the period covered by the goals (through September 30, 2017, the end of fiscal year 2017)  The memorandum further noted that agencies and teams working on those goals should continue working on the current goals where they align with the priorities of the current administration  Moreover, the memorandum states that agencies have flexibility in structuring their data-driven reviews, but they should continue such reviews focused on agency priorities  When asked about these actions, OMB staff told us that they believed they were working in line with the intentions of GPRAMA, which realigned the timing of goal setting with presidential terms, to better take into account changes in priorities  This is the first presidential transition since GPRAMA was enacted, and OMB staff told us they thought the act was unclear on how to handle priority goals during the changes in administrations and priorities  They stated that it was not practical to continue reporting on the priority goals of the prior administration as agencies worked to develop new strategic plans and priority goals for publication in February 2018  Hence, they told us OMB ended the current round of CAP goals and directed agencies to remove the priority designation from the APGs, returning them to regular performance goals  OMB staff further told us that although the guidance was published in a June 2017 memorandum, these decisions had been made and previously communicated to agencies during the transition in administrations  Therefore, reporting on the fiscal year 2014-2017 CAP goals, fiscal year 2016-2017 APGs, and related reviews stopped much earlier in the year, well before goal cycles were planned to be completed on September 30, 2017  OMB staff further stated that although the goals no longer had priority designations, work towards them largely continued in 2017  For example, one of the prior administration’s CAP goals was to modernize the federal permitting and review process for major infrastructure projects  OMB staff told us that they and agencies have continued many of the activities intended to achieve that goal, but they are no longer subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of these reviews on Performance gov  Moreover, they expect most of this work will continue towards a new and refocused CAP goal on infrastructure permitting modernization  OMB staff reaffirmed to us their intentions to resume implementation of CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews when the new planning and reporting cycle begins in February 2018  This is in line with stated plans to leverage various GPRAMA provisions to track progress of proposed government-wide and agency-specific reforms, as outlined in OMB’s April 2017 memorandum on the reform plans  In addition, OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance for implementing GPRAMA similarly focuses on continued implementation of the act  Additional aspects of GPRAMA implementation could similarly help improve the management of crosscutting issues  Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2012 guidance implementing GPRAMA established a process in which agencies, beginning in 2014, were to conduct leadership-driven, annual reviews of their progress toward achieving each strategic objective established in their strategic plans  As we found in July 2015, effectively implementing strategic reviews could help identify opportunities to reduce, eliminate, or better manage instances of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Under OMB’s guidance, agencies are to identify the various organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each objective, both within and outside the agency  Where progress in achieving an objective is lagging, the reviews are intended to identify strategies for improvement, such as strengthening collaboration to better address crosscutting challenges, or using evidence to identify and implement more effective program designs  If successfully implemented in a way that is open, inclusive, and transparent—to Congress, delivery partners, and a full range of stakeholders—this approach could help decision makers assess the relative contributions of various programs to a given objective  Successful strategic reviews could also help decision makers identify and assess the interplay of public policy tools that are being used to ensure that those tools are effective and mutually reinforcing, and that results are being efficiently achieved  In July 2017, OMB released guidance which updated the status of the 2017 strategic reviews  Because agencies are currently developing new strategic goals and objectives, OMB stated that agencies may forego the reporting and categorization requirements for any current strategic objectives that an agency determines will be substantively different or no longer aligned with the current administration’s policy, legislative, regulatory, or budgetary priorities  In addition, OMB stated that while there will be no formal meetings between OMB and the agencies to discuss findings and related progress from the 2017 strategic reviews, it expects that agencies will continue to conduct strategic reviews or assess progress made toward strategic goals and objectives aligned with administration policy  Furthermore, OMB stated that during this transition year, updates of progress on agency strategic objectives will only be published in the agency’s annual performance report and will not be reported to Performance gov  Full reporting through Performance gov is to resume after new agency strategic plans are published in February 2018  Agencies are to include a progress update for strategic objectives as part of their progress update in their fiscal year 2017 annual performance reports  Agencies also must address next steps for performance improvement as part of their fiscal year 2019 annual performance plans  Program inventories: GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, on a central government-wide website  Such a list could help decision makers and the public fully understand what the federal government does, how it does it, and how well it is doing  An inventory of federal programs could also be a critical tool to help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the federal government  Agencies developed initial program inventories in May 2013, but since then have not updated or more fully implemented these inventories  In October 2014, we found several issues limited the completeness, comparability, and usefulness of the May 2013 program inventories  OMB and agencies did not take a systematic approach to developing comprehensive inventories  For example, OMB’s guidance in Circular No  A-11 presented five possible approaches agencies could take to define their programs and noted that agencies could use one or more of those approaches in doing so  We found that because the agencies used inconsistent approaches to define their programs, the comparability of programs was limited within agencies as well as government-wide  In addition, we found that the inventories had limited usefulness for decision making, as they did not consistently provide the program and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA  Moreover, we found that agencies did not solicit feedback on their inventories from external stakeholders—which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party service providers, and the public  Doing so would have provided OMB and agencies an opportunity to ensure they were presenting useful information for stakeholder decision making  We concluded that the ability to tag and sort information about programs through a more dynamic, web-based presentation could make the inventory more useful  In October 2014, we made several recommendations to OMB to update relevant guidance to help develop a more coherent picture of all federal programs and to better ensure relevant information is useful for decision makers  For example, we recommended that OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their approach to defining and identifying programs when developing or updating their inventories  OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, but have not yet taken any actions to implement them  OMB’s guidance for the program inventory has largely remained unchanged since 2014, when OMB postponed further development of the program inventory and eliminated portions of the guidance  For example, the guidance no longer describes, or provides directions for agencies to meet, GPRAMA’s requirements for presenting related budget or performance information for each program  OMB decided to postpone implementing a planned May 2014 update to the program inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the public spending reporting required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  OMB subsequently stated that it would not begin implementing the program inventory until after the DATA Act was implemented in May 2017, despite requirements for regular updates to the program inventory to reflect current budget and performance information  The DATA Act is now being implemented, but OMB has postponed resuming the development of the program inventory  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they are now considering how to align GPRAMA’s program inventory provisions with future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  This was reflected in OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance, which states that OMB is working with agencies to determine the right strategy to merge the implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicating efforts  For example, PMIAA requires OMB to coordinate with agency Program Management Improvement Officers to conduct portfolio reviews of agency programs to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management  GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance for implementing the program inventory requirements, among other things  Moreover, federal internal control standards state that organizations should clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  As described above, OMB’s current guidance for the program inventory lacks some of those details—such as describing and providing direction to meet GPRAMA’s requirements for budget and performance information—in part because OMB is working with agencies to determine a strategy for implementation  Ensuring all GPRAMA requirements are covered and taking action on our past recommendations would help OMB improve its guidance to more fully implement the program inventory and improve its usefulness  To that end, in a report issued earlier this month, we identified a series of iterative steps that OMB could use in directing agencies to develop a useful inventory, as described in figure 3  A useful inventory would consist of all programs identified, information about each program, and the organizational structure of the programs  Our work showed that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs  Such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help OMB ensure the inventory is implemented in line with GPRAMA requirements and meets the needs of decision makers and the public, among others  OMB’s guidance also lacks specific time frames, with associated milestones for resuming implementation of the program inventory requirements  As part of PMIAA’s requirements, OMB is to issue standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies by December 2017  OMB staff told us that, within a year after that, they expect to issue further guidance on moving forward with resuming the program inventory  However, that general time frame was not reflected in the July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance  Providing specific time frames and associated milestones would bring the program inventory guidance in line with other portions of OMB’s guidance for implementing GPRAMA requirements, which contains a timeline of various performance planning and reporting requirements, including specific dates for meeting those requirements and related descriptions of required actions  For example, OMB’s July 2017 guidance identifies over 30 actions agencies should take between June 2017 and December 2018 to implement various GPRAMA provision  More specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation by allowing them to know what actions they would be expected to take and by when  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones also would help ensure that external stakeholders are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories  Effectively implementing various GPRAMA tools could help inform assessments of the performance of tax expenditures, which are reductions in tax liabilities that result from preferential provisions (figure 4)  In fiscal year 2016, tax expenditures represented an estimated $1 4 trillion in forgone revenue, an amount greater than total discretionary spending that year  Despite the magnitude of these investments, our work has also shown that little has been done to determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their stated purposes and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with similar goals  GPRAMA requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that contribute to the CAP goals  In addition, OMB guidance directs agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their strategic objectives and APGs  However, our past work reviewing GPRAMA implementation found that OMB and agencies rarely identified tax expenditures as contributors to these goals  Fully implementing our recommendation to identify how tax expenditures contribute to various goals could help the federal government establish a process for evaluating the performance of tax expenditures  To that end, in May 2017, we provided the Director of OMB with three priority recommendations that require attention: Develop framework for reviewing performance: In June 1994, and again in September 2005, we recommended that OMB develop a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance  We explained that the framework should (1) outline leadership responsibilities and coordination among agencies with related responsibilities, (2) set a review schedule, (3) identify review methods and ways to address the lack of credible tax expenditure performance information, and (4) identify resources needed for tax expenditure reviews  Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures  Inventory tax expenditures: In October 2014, we found that OMB had not included tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, and therefore was missing an opportunity to increase the transparency of tax expenditures and the outcomes to which they contribute  We recommended that OMB should designate tax expenditures as a program type in relevant guidance, and develop, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related budget and performance information  OMB staff said they neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommended actions  As noted earlier, OMB has not resumed updates to the program inventory  Therefore, OMB had not taken any actions in response to this recommendation, according to OMB staff as of July 2017  Identify contributions to agency goals: In July 2016, we found that agencies had made limited progress identifying tax expenditures’ contribution to agency goals, as directed by OMB guidance  As of January 2016, 7 of the 24 CFO Act agencies identified tax expenditures as contributing to their missions or goals  The 11 tax expenditure they identified—out of the 169 tax expenditures included in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017—represented approximately $31 9 billion of the $1 2 trillion in estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2015  (See figure 5 ) To help address this issue, we recommended that OMB, in collaboration with the Department of the Treasury, work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate  In particular, we recommended that they identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and APGs  In July 2017, OMB staff said they had taken no actions to address the recommendation  Our July 2016 report also identified options for policymakers to further incorporate tax expenditures into federal budgeting processes, several of which options align with the recommendations discussed above  These options could help achieve various benefits, but we also reported that policymakers would need to consider challenges and tradeoffs in deciding whether or how to implement them  For example, one option was to require that all tax expenditures, or some subset of them, expire after a finite period  This option could result in greater oversight, requiring policymakers to explicitly decide whether to extend more or all tax expenditures  One consideration with this option is that it could lead to frequent changes in the tax code, such as from extended or expired tax expenditures, which can create uncertainty and make tax planning more difficult  Our previous work has shown that using performance information in decision making is essential to improving results  Performance information can be used across a range of management activities, such as setting priorities, allocating resources, or identifying problems to be addressed  However, our work continues to show that agencies can better use performance information in decision making, as shown in the example in the text box below  Department of Justice (DOJ) Could Better Analyze Performance Information to Reduce Backlog in Immigration Courts In June 2017, we found that the case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year—at DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courts more than doubled from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  Stakeholders identified various factors that potentially contributed to the backlog, including continuances—temporary case adjournments until a different day or time  Our analysis of continuance records showed that the use of continuances increased by 23 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  We found that EOIR collects continuance data but does not systematically assess them  Systematically analyzing the use of continuances could provide EOIR officials with valuable information about challenges the immigration courts may be experiencing, such as with operational issues like courtroom technology malfunctions, or areas that may merit additional guidance for immigration judges  Further, using this information to potentially address operational challenges could help that office meet its goals for completing cases in a timely manner  We recommended that the Director of EOIR systematically analyze immigration court continuance data to identify and address any operational challenges faced by courts or areas for additional guidance or training  EIOR agreed with this recommendation  EOIR stated that it supports conducting additional analysis of immigration court continuance data and recognizes that additional guidance or training regarding continuances may be beneficial to ensure that immigration judges use continuances appropriately in support of EOIR’s mission to adjudicate immigration cases in a careful and timely manner  We will monitor EOIR’s progress in taking these actions  Our 2017 survey of federal managers shows little change in their reported use of performance information  Using a set of survey questions, we previously developed an index that reflects the extent to which managers reported that their agencies used performance information for various management activities and decision making  The index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not change significantly between 2013 and 2017, and it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index  Figure 6 shows the questions included in the index and the government-wide results  In regard to individual survey items, in 2017 federal managers reported no changes or decreases in their use of performance information when compared to our last survey and when those survey items were first introduced  These results are generally consistent with our last few surveys  For example, in 2008 we found that there had been little change in federal managers’ reported use of performance information government-wide from 1997 to our 2007 survey  Citing those results, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that agencies were not consistently using performance information to improve their management and results  The report further stated that provisions in GPRAMA are intended to address those findings and increase the use of performance information to improve performance and results  However, five items that were highlighted in our 2008 statement on the 2007 survey results generally show no improvement when compared to the 2017 results, as shown in figure 7  The one exception is for managers’ reported use of performance information to refine program performance measures  While this item was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007—an estimated 46 percent to 53 percent—the 2017 result (43 percent) is a statistically significant decrease relative to 2013 and is not statistically different from the 2007 results  Another item, the use of performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes, also was statistically significantly lower in 2017 (47 percent) when compared to 2007 and 2013 (53 and 54 percent, respectively)  This is of particular concern as agencies are developing their reform plans  Moreover, when compared to our 1997 survey, the 2017 results show four of the five items are statistically significantly lower, and the remaining item—allocating resources—has not changed  Similarly, we found there was no improvement in 2017 for more recent survey items on other uses of performance information compared to the years in which they were introduced, as shown in figure 8  Although one item, on the use of performance information to develop program strategy, was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007 (an estimated 58 and 51 percent, respectively), the 2017 result (53 percent) does not represent a statistically significant change from either of those years  Another item, on the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities, is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013, when it was introduced (from 44 to 33 percent in 2017)  This is especially concerning because streamlining and reducing duplication are to be key parts of agencies’ reform plans  There is one area in the survey where we saw improvement: an estimated 46 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information in management decision making  That is statistically significantly higher relative to 2013 (40 percent), as well as when compared to when the item was introduced in 2007 (37 percent)  For a new and related item in the 2017 survey that asked managers the amount of attention their employees pay to the use of performance information in decision making when compared to 3 years ago, we found an estimated 48 percent reported that employees pay about the same 33 percent reported that employees pay somewhat or a great deal more attention  In September 2005, we identified five practices that agencies can apply to enhance the use of performance information in their decision making and improve results: demonstrating management commitment; communicating performance information frequently and efficiently; improving the usefulness of performance information, such as by ensuring the accessibility of the information; developing the capacity to use performance information; and aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures  Many of the requirements put in place by GPRAMA reinforce the importance of these practices  Our 2017 survey of federal managers includes a number of items related to these practices  However, the 2017 results suggest that managers have not effectively adopted them  In the following sections, we examine several of the practices to enhance the use of performance information and their related survey items further  In doing so, we also highlight a subset of six survey items related to these practices that, while separate from those in our use of performance information index, we found in September 2014 to have a statistically significant and positive relationship with it  The commitment of agency leaders to results-oriented management is critical to increased use of performance information for policy and program decisions  GPRAMA requires top leadership involvement in performance management, including leading data-driven performance reviews  However, we have previously reported that improvements are needed to strengthen leadership’s commitment to use performance information, as discussed in the text box below  Department of Defense Should Strengthen Leadership Responsibilities for Using Performance Information In January 2005, we designated the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach to business transformation as high-risk because DOD had not taken the necessary steps to achieve and sustain business reform on a broad, strategic, department-wide, and integrated basis  In the February 2017 update to our High-Risk List, we found that DOD had taken some positive steps to improve its business transformation efforts continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement, and leading regular DOD performance reviews regarding transformation goals and associated metrics and ensuring that business function leaders attend these reviews to facilitate problem solving  In July 2017, DOD officials told us that the department’s performance reviews have been put on hold until after the new Agency Strategic Plan is issued  We will review DOD’s updated Agency Strategic Plan when it is issued (expected in February 2018, as required by GPRAMA) to see if it addresses continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement  We will continue to monitor the status of these actions  GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D C : Feb  15, 2017)  Results from our 2017 survey show no statistically significant difference relative to 2013 in managers’ perceptions of leaders’ and supervisors’ attention and commitment to the use of performance information  (See figure 9 ) Three items are statistically significantly different from the years when they were introduced  Two items increased between 1997 and 2017: changes by management to my program(s) are based on results-oriented information (from an estimated 16 to 25 percent), and the individual I report to periodically reviews with me the outcomes of my program(s) (from 42 to 54 percent)  For the third item, top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to using performance information to guide decision making, results decreased from 49 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in 2017  New items in the 2017 survey show some improvement in management commitment to the use of performance information in decision making  An estimated 36 percent of federal managers reported that, when compared to 3 years ago, the individual they report to pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 46 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Additionally, an estimated 21 percent of federal managers said that, when compared to 3 years ago, the head of their agency pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 33 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Communicating performance information frequently and effectively throughout an agency can help to achieve the agency’s goals  GPRAMA includes requirements for communicating performance information, such as reporting progress updates for APGs at least quarterly  However, our prior work has found that some agencies could continue to improve in the communication of performance information, as illustrated by the example in the text box below  Department of Education (Education) Could Better Share Effective Practices across States in Grant Program Education awards 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants to states, which in turn competitively award funds to local organizations that use them to offer academic enrichment and other activities to improve students’ academic and behavioral outcomes  In April 2017, we found that states are experiencing substantial difficulty in sustaining their programs after 21st Century funding ends  We further found that Education was missing opportunities in its monitoring efforts to collect information on states’ strategies and practices for program sustainability—information that could be useful for sharing promising practices across states  We recommended that Education use the information it collects from its monitoring visits and ongoing interactions with states to share effective practices across states for sustaining their 21st Century programs once program funding ends  Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation but outlined steps it is taking to address it  We will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation  There is no difference for two survey items on federal managers communicating performance information relative to 2013 or since those items were introduced in 2007  In 2017, we estimate that 44 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis  In addition, 34 percent agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level use performance information to share effective program approaches with others  Our 2017 survey data also indicate that agencies may not be effectively communicating to their employees about contributions to CAP goals or progress toward achieving APGs  Of the estimated 54 percent of federal managers who indicated they were familiar with CAP goals, 23 percent reported that their agency has communicated to its employees on those goals to a great or very great extent  Of the 74 percent of federal managers who indicated familiarity with APGs, 44 percent reported that their agency has communicated on progress toward achieving those goals to great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that agencies should consider users’ differing needs—for accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, ease of use, timeliness, and validity, among others things—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used  GPRAMA introduced several requirements that could help to address aspects of usefulness, such as requiring agencies to disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their performance data and actions to address limitations to the data  However, agencies face challenges in ensuring their performance information is useful, with one instance from our past work described in the text box below  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Could Improve Usefulness of Information in Planned Grantee Portal EPA monitors performance reports and program-specific data from grantees to ensure that grants achieve environmental and other program results  However, in July 2016, we found that EPA’s 2014 internal analysis of its grants management business processes identified improvements that, if implemented into EPA’s planned web-based portal, could improve the accessibility and usefulness of information in grantee performance reports for EPA, grantees, and other users  We recommended, among other actions, that EPA incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web- based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility  EPA agreed with our recommendation but stated that it is a long- term initiative, subject to the agency’s budget process and replacement of its existing grants management system  As of May 2017, EPA officials said that they have not begun work on the web-based portal project, which is subject to the availability of funds  Federal managers generally responded similarly in 2017 on a variety of survey items related to usefulness, relative to earlier surveys  On a broadly worded item, less than half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level take steps to ensure that performance information is useful and appropriate  At an estimated 43 percent in 2017, this represents no statistically significant change compared to our last surveys in 2013 or 2007, when the item was introduced  Responses to four survey items indicate no changes in hindrances related to the usefulness of performance information  There is no statistically significant change in managers reporting hindrances compared to 1997 or 2013, as shown in figure 10  In addition, there was a statistically significant increase when compared to 2013 on only one of six items about managers’ views on the usefulness of performance information, as shown in figure 11  As the figure shows, approximately one-third to half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent on each item related to the usefulness of performance information  Although less than half of managers reported having sufficient information on validity of performance data used to make decisions, this represents a statistically significant increase to an estimated 42 percent in 2017 compared to 36 percent in 2013, and from 28 percent in 2000, when this item was introduced  This is a notable improvement because our September 2014 report found that the strongest driver of the use of performance information was whether federal managers had confidence in its validity  Our analysis suggests that easy access to performance information is related to the effective communication of performance information  Of the estimated 49 percent of federal managers in 2017 who agreed to a great or very great extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 63 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Conversely, of the 20 percent that agreed to a small or no extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 12 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that building capacity—including analytical tools and staff expertise—is critical to using performance information in a meaningful manner  GPRAMA lays out specific requirements that reinforce the importance of staff capacity to use performance information  GPRAMA directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to take certain actions to support agency hiring and training of performance management staff  Specifically, by January 2012, OPM was to identify skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness  By January 2013, OPM was to incorporate these skills and competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each agency to incorporate the identified skills into employee training  In April 2013, we found that OPM had completed its work on the first two responsibilities and taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance management staff competencies into training  However, OPM did not assess competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its work  Without this information, OPM, working with the PIC, was not well-positioned to focus on the most- needed resources and help other agencies use them  We recommended that the Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the Chief Learning Officer Council, work with agencies to take the following three actions: 1  Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies  2  Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance management competencies  3  Share information about available agency training on competency areas needing improvement  In July 2017, PIC staff stated they have not focused on identifying competency areas because the competencies do not resonate strongly with the performance community  Instead, staff said they identified a need for introductory training on performance management, which they have developed and piloted  They said that they are not sure when they will implement the training, since the PIC is reviewing priorities with its new executive director  We continue to believe that identifying the competency areas would be useful, and will monitor the PIC’s efforts to identify and share training  The need for performance management training is further highlighted by our survey results  Our 2017 survey shows no statistically significant change in managers’ responses about the availability of training on various performance management activities relative to 2013, including the use of performance information to make decisions  However, the response to each of the six questions related to specific training is statistically significantly higher relative to the year in which it was introduced, as shown in figure 12  Similarly, in 2017 there was no statistically significant change on four survey items related to agencies’ analysis and evaluation tools and staff’s skills and competencies when compared to 2013 or when these items were introduced  We estimate that in 2017 29 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing in resources to improve the agencies’ capacity to use performance information; 28 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing the resources needed to ensure that performance data are of sufficient quality; 33 percent of managers reported that they agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies have sufficient analytical tools for managers at their levels to collect, analyze, and use performance information; and 33 percent of managers reported that they agree to a great or very great extent that the programs they are involved with have sufficient staff with the knowledge and skills needed to analyze performance information  Performance reviews can serve as a strategy to bring leadership and other responsible parties together to review performance information and identify important opportunities to drive performance improvements  Our prior work has examined how different types of performance reviews—strategic reviews, data-driven reviews, and retrospective regulatory reviews—can contribute to agencies assessing progress toward desired results  Strategic reviews: As previously mentioned, in implementing GPRAMA, OMB established a review process in which agencies are to annually assess their progress in achieving each strategic objective in their strategic plans, known as strategic reviews  Given the long-term and complex nature of many outcomes, the strategic review should be informed by a variety of evidence regarding the implementation of strategies and their effectiveness in achieving outcomes  OMB’s guidance states that the strategic review process should consider multiple perspectives and sources of evidence to understand the progress made on each strategic objective  It further states that the results of these reviews should inform many of the decision-making processes at the agency, as well as decision making by the agency’s stakeholders, in areas such as long-term strategy, budget formulation, and risk management  In 2017, agencies are completing their fourth round of these reviews  Our prior work has identified ways in which agencies can effectively conduct these reviews and leverage the results that come from them  In July 2015, we identified seven practices federal agencies can employ to facilitate effective strategic reviews  (See sidebar ) In addition, earlier this month we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing these reviews  Specifically, we found that (1) strategic reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives, (2) agencies used existing management and performance processes to conduct the reviews, and (3) agencies refined their reviews by capturing lessons learned  Data-driven reviews: GPRAMA requires agencies to review progress toward APGs at least once a quarter  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that this approach is aimed at increasing the use of performance information to improve performance and results  In February 2013, we identified nine leading practices to promote successful data-driven performance reviews in the federal government  (See sidebar ) In July 2015, we found that most of the 24 CFO Act agencies were conducting their reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our leading practices  Moreover, agencies reported that their data-driven performance reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold officials accountable for progress, and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations  Our 2017 survey shows that federal managers remain largely unfamiliar with their agency’s data-driven performance reviews, also known as quarterly performance reviews (QPRs)  An estimated 35 percent of managers reported familiarity with their agency’s QPRs  Survey results show that a greater percentage of Senior Executive Service (SES) managers than non-SES managers reported that they were familiar with QPRs  Approximately 50 percent of SES managers reported being somewhat or very familiar with QPRs; 34 percent of non-SES reported the same  However, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with QPRs, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a QPR, the more likely they were to report their agency’s QPRs were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices  Figure 13 shows several illustrative examples of these survey items  For example, of the estimated 48 percent of federal managers who reported their programs being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent, 83 percent also reported their agencies use QPRs to identify problems or opportunities associated with agency performance goals  Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to QPRs to a small or no extent, 22 percent also reported the reviews were used for these purposes to a great or very great extent  Being subject to a QPR is also positively related to viewing QPRs as having led to similar meetings at lower levels  An estimated 62 percent of federal managers who reported being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent also reported their agencies have similar meetings at lower levels to a great or very great extent  An estimated 16 percent of federal managers subject to QPRs to a small or no extent reported the same  Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through QPRs, as found by our past work and survey data, these reviews are not necessarily widespread  GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct QPRs for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals—generally 2 to 8 priority goals at each designated agency, with approximately 100 total government-wide  Moreover, these required reviews are at the department (or major independent agency) level  These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews  As was described previously, our 2017 survey data show that the reported use of performance information in decision making generally has not improved and in some cases is lower than it was 20 years ago  Survey data also show that managers generally have not reported increases in their employment of practices that further promote the use of performance information in decision making  This suggests that agencies could increase the use of performance information in decision making and the likelihood of achieving desired results by going beyond the specific GPRAMA requirements and expanding their use of data-driven performance reviews—in line with leading practices—to more broadly cover other agency-wide performance goals, as well as goals at lower levels within the agency  For example, such reviews at the program level could help inform the previously mentioned portfolio reviews required by the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  We have already suggested expanding reviews to other performance goals  Our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition includes a key action to expand the use of data-driven performance reviews to assess progress toward meeting agency performance goals  Our prior work has stated that although GPRAMA’s requirements apply at the agency-wide level, they can also serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies, offices, programs, and projects  In addition, federal internal control standards call for the design of appropriate control activities, such as top-level reviews of actual performance and reviews by management at the functional or activity level  The standards also recommend that management design control activities at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure  The July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance states that agency leaders, including various chief officer positions, are to conduct frequent data- driven reviews to drive improvements on various management functions  For example, the agency Chief Human Capital Officer is to conduct quarterly data-driven reviews (known as HRStat) to monitor the progress of human capital goals and measures contained in the human capital operating plan  Beyond these management areas, OMB’s guidance also states that agencies may expand quarterly progress reviews beyond APGs to include other goals and priorities  However, OMB’s guidance does not identify practices for agencies to expand the use of these reviews to other goals, such as other agency-wide performance goals or those at lower levels within the agency  As mentioned previously, one of the responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) is to facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  By working with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices to expand the use of data- driven reviews, OMB could help agencies increase the use of performance information in decision making and achieve results  Retrospective regulatory reviews: In retrospective reviews, agencies evaluate how existing regulations are working in practice and whether they are achieving expected outcomes  GPRAMA requires agencies to identify and assess how their various program activities and other activities, including regulations, contribute to APGs  However, in April 2014, we found that agencies reported mixed experiences linking retrospective analyses to APGs  We recommended that OMB strengthen these reviews by issuing guidance for agencies to take actions to ensure that contributions made by regulations toward achieving APGs are properly considered, and improve how retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform assessments of progress toward these APGs  OMB staff agreed with this recommendation and stated that the agency was working on strategies to help facilitate agencies’ ability to use retrospective reviews to inform APGs  To that end, in April 2017, OMB issued guidance to agencies that, among other things, emphasized the importance of performance measures related to evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs  OMB included explicit references to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, which directed agencies’ efforts to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews  Specifically, the updated guidance encourages agencies to establish and report “meaningful performance indicators and goals for the purpose of evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs ” The guidance further states that agencies’ efforts to improve such net benefits may be conducted as part of developing agency strategic and performance plans and priority goals  In July 2017, OMB confirmed that the updated guidance was issued, in part, to address our April 2014 recommendation  For several years, OMB has encouraged agencies to expand their use of evidence—performance measures, program evaluation results, and other relevant data analytics and research studies—in budget, management, and policy decisions with the goal of improving government effectiveness  In particular, OMB has encouraged agencies to strengthen their program evaluations—systematic studies that use research methods to address specific questions about program performance  Evaluation is closely related to performance measurement and reporting  Evaluations can be designed to better isolate the causal impact of programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in order to assess a program’s effectiveness  Thus, an evaluation study can provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or assessing whether one approach is more effective than another  Despite the valuable insights and information that program evaluations can provide, we continue to find that most federal managers lack access to or awareness of such studies  Our 2017 survey shows that an estimated 40 percent of managers reported that an evaluation had been completed within the past 5 years of any program, operation, or project in which they were involved—comparable to the results in our 2013 survey, when questions about program evaluations were added  In recent years, OMB has encouraged agencies to explore evidence-based tools to strengthen agency and grantee evaluation capacity, consider the effectiveness of their programs, and foster innovation rooted in research and rigorous evaluation  During the past 2 years, we examined several of those tools, as described below  Pay for success: Also known as social impact bonds, pay for success is a contracting mechanism under which investors provide the capital the government uses to provide a social service  The government specifies performance outcomes in pay for success contracts and generally includes a requirement that a program’s impact be independently evaluated  The evaluators also are to regularly review performance data, while those managing and investing in a project focus on performance and accountability, as shown in the figure 14  In September 2015, we found that the federal government’s involvement in pay for success had been limited  In addition, a formal mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success did not exist  We concluded that, given the evolving nature of pay for success, a mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate would increase access to leading practices  We therefore recommended that OMB establish a formal means for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success  OMB concurred and, in February 2016, announced that it had developed the Pay for Success Interagency Learning Network with representatives from 10 federal agencies to share lessons, hone policy, and strengthen implementation  Tiered evidence grants: Tiered evidence grants seek to incorporate evidence of effectiveness into grant making  Federal agencies establish tiers of grant funding based on the level of evidence grantees provide on their approaches to deliver social, educational, health, or other services  (See figure 15 ) Smaller awards are used to test new and innovative approaches, while larger awards are used to scale up approaches that have strong evidence of effectiveness  This creates incentives for grantees to use approaches supported by evidence and helps them build the capacity to conduct evaluations  In September 2016, we found that interagency collaboration had helped federal agencies that administer tiered evidence grants address challenges and share lessons learned  At that time, such collaborative efforts relied on informal networks  We recommended that OMB establish a formal means for agencies to collaborate on tiered evidence grants  OMB had no comment on the recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they had established an interagency working group and other mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and disseminate information on tiered evidence grants  Performance partnerships: Performance partnerships allow federal agencies to provide grant recipients flexibility in how they use funding across two or more programs along with additional flexibilities  In exchange, the recipient commits to improve and assess progress toward agreed-upon outcomes  Figure 16 provides an overview of the performance partnership model  In April 2017, we examined two performance partnership initiatives authorized by Congress: the Environmental Protection Agency’s Performance Partnership Grants and the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, which allows funding from multiple programs across multiple agencies to be combined into pilot programs serving disconnected youth  For the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, we found that the agencies involved in the initiative had not fully identified the key financial and staff resources each agency would need to contribute over the lifetime of the initiative in line with leading practices for interagency collaboration  This was because agencies primarily had been focused on meeting near-term needs to support design and implementation  We also found that agencies had not developed criteria to help determine whether, how, and when to implement the flexibilities tested by the pilots in a broader context  (This is known as scalability ) Officials involved in the pilots told us it was too early in pilot implementation to determine such criteria  However, by not identifying these criteria while designing the pilots, they were risking not collecting needed data during pilot implementation  We recommended that OMB coordinate with federal agencies to identify (1) agency resource contributions needed for the lifetime of the pilots and (2) criteria and related data for assessing scalability  OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations  We continue to monitor progress on these recommendations  In 2003, we identified nine key practices for effective performance management that collectively create a “line of sight” between individual performance and organizational success  (See sidebar on next page ) Our recent work and the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers highlight areas where agencies have made progress but could take additional action to better reflect several of these practices, thereby better instilling results-oriented cultures  Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals: Our 2003 report found that high-performing organizations use their performance management systems to help individuals see the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals  The executive branch has taken several steps to link individual and organizational results  For example, in October 2000, OPM issued guidance to link SES performance expectations with GPRA-required goals  In January 2012, OPM and OMB released a government-wide SES performance appraisal system that provided agencies with a standard framework to manage the performance of SES members  However, our work continues to identify areas for improvement  Goal leaders and deputy goal leaders are responsible for achieving APGs, but our July 2014 review found that the performance plans for a sample of goal and deputy goal leaders generally did not link their individual performance and the broader goal  We recommended that OMB ensure that those plans demonstrate a clear connection with APGs  OMB staff generally agreed with our recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff stated that components of both OMB and OPM guidance support accountability for agency priority goals  Despite this, we continue to believe that ensuring an explicit connection in performance plans to APGs will improve accountability, and that additional action is needed to do so  In May 2016, we found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had not aligned Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators’ performance expectations with its organizational goals for implementing the National Disaster Recovery Framework  We concluded that without this linkage, FEMA could not evaluate how effectively the coordinators performed in implementing the framework  We recommended that FEMA align performance expectations consistent with leading practices  The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation  In July 2017, FEMA stated that it is preparing the Field Leader Manual, which will define the core competencies and duties of coordinators  We will continue to monitor FEMA’s actions to implement this recommendation  Our 2017 survey also shows that this linkage could be improved for other federal employees  An estimated 58 percent of federal managers reported using performance information to a great or very great extent in setting expectations for employees they manage or supervise  The 2017 responses do not represent a statistically significant change when compared to our last survey in 2013 (62 percent) or to 1997 (61 percent), the year this survey item was introduced  Address organizational priorities: Our prior work showed that, by requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance gaps, high- performing organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making progress on their priorities  Our past and 2017 surveys have identified differences in responses between SES and non-SES managers reporting being held accountable for results  For example, in 2017, our survey results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between SES and non-SES managers reporting to a great or very great extent that they were held accountable for results of the programs for which they are responsible  However, our 2017 survey shows no change compared to our last survey in either SES or non-SES managers reporting they were held accountable for results  There are statistically significant increases when compared to 1997, when these survey items were introduced  For example, an estimated 79 percent of SES managers and 64 percent of non-SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for results of the programs for which they are responsible in 2017  This does not represent a statistically significant change from our 2013 survey (80 percent and 67 percent, respectively), but it is statistically significantly higher than the 62 percent of SES managers and 54 percent of non-SES managers in 1997  (See figure 17 ) Similarly, as shown in figure 18, an estimated 71 percent of SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for accomplishing agency strategic goals in 2017  This represents no statistical change since 2013 (73 percent), but it is a statistically significant increase compared to when this item was introduced in 2003 (61 percent)  Additionally, as figure 18 shows, a gap between being held accountable for strategic goals and having the decision-making authority needed to help accomplish those goals has nearly closed, due to an increase in the latter survey item  The estimated 69 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great or very great extent in 2017 is a statistically significant increase relative to both 2013 (61 percent) and 1997 (51 percent)  As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and APGs  Our past work has generally found that they are in place  GPRAMA also requires agencies to identify an agency official responsible for resolving major management challenges, which can help ensure accountability  (See sidebar ) However, in June 2016 we found that 17 of the 24 CFO Act agencies had not identified an agency official responsible for resolving each of their challenges, partly because OMB guidance was not clear that major management challenges should be identified in agency performance plans  We recommended that the 17 agencies identify such officials in their performance plans, and that OMB clarify its guidance  OMB revised its guidance accordingly in July 2016, and, as of July 2017, 7 of the 17 agencies had identified officials responsible for resolving major management challenges  Link pay to individual and organizational performance: High- performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to organizational results  Our work has found that agencies have made progress in this area  For example, in July 2013, we found that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lacked mechanisms to monitor how supervisors used its performance management system to recognize and reward performance  To help enhance the credibility of SEC’s performance management system, we recommended that it create mechanisms to monitor how supervisors use the performance management system  In a subsequent (December 2016) report, we found that, in response to our recommendation, SEC began monitoring how supervisors provide feedback, recognize and reward staff, and address poor performance  However, federal managers generally reported no change on three items related to recognizing and rewarding employee performance since our last survey in 2013 (figure 19)  One of those items—managers agreeing to a great or very great extent that employees in their agency receive positive recognition for helping the agency to accomplish its strategic goals—had a statistically significant increase between 1997 and 2017 (from an estimated 26 percent to 46 percent)  Make meaningful distinctions in performance: Effective performance management requires the organization’s leadership to meaningfully distinguish between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and to appropriately reward those who perform at the highest level  For example, in January 2015, we found disparities in performance ratings for SES among agencies  Across the 24 CFO Act agencies, the percent of SES rated at the highest level ranged from about 22 percent to 95 percent in fiscal year 2013  To help address these disparities, we recommended that the Director of OPM consider the need to refine the performance certifications guidelines addressing distinctions in performance  To address this recommendation, OPM informed us, in June 2015, that it had convened a cross-agency working group that developed a standard template for agencies to complete and post on a website to more transparently justify their SES ratings distributions  In May 2016, we found that about 74 percent of non-SES employees under a five-level appraisal system—the most commonly used system— were rated in the top two of five performance categories in 2013  We explored this issue further in our December 2016 review of human capital challenges at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which illustrates the importance of making meaningful distinctions in performance for non- SES employees  We found that in fiscal year 2014, about 73 percent of VHA employees were rated in the top two of five performance categories  This may have been due, in part, to a policy that did not require standards to be defined for each level of performance  We recommended that VHA ensure that meaningful distinctions are being made in employee performance ratings by reviewing and revising performance management policies consistent with leading practices, among other actions  The Department of Veterans Affairs partially concurred with our recommendation  In May 2017, the department stated that it had begun piloting a new performance management process and would analyze results at the end of fiscal year 2017  One key aspect of connecting daily operations to results is aligning program performance measures to agency-wide goals and objectives  However, in 2017, an estimated 50 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level took steps to create such an alignment  There has been no statistically significant change since this item was introduced in 2007  In addition, GPRAMA calls for agencies to develop a balanced set of performance measures, which reinforces the need for agencies to have a variety of measures across program areas  Our 2017 survey shows that managers have not reported any difference in the availability of performance measures for their programs when compared to the 2013 results  However, the 2017 result (an estimated 87 percent) represents a statistically significant increase when compared to 1997 (76 percent)  When asked about the availability of certain types of performance measures, three of the five types (outcome, output, and efficiency) were statistically significantly higher in 2017 when compared to our initial 1997 survey  However, when comparing 2017 results to those in 2013, two of the five types (output and quality) showed a statistically significant decrease, and the other types did not change  These are illustrated in figure 20  Beyond the survey results, our work has found that some agencies had not developed or used outcome measures, but have taken steps to do so  Agencies have been responsible for measuring program outcomes since GPRA was enacted in 1993  The text box below describes two illustrative examples from our past work  Examples of Agencies That Did Not Develop or Use Outcome Measures Patient access to electronic health information: In March 2017, we found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had invested over $35 billion since 2009 to enhance patient access to electronic health information, among other things  HHS had not developed outcome measures to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts, which meant the department did not have information to determine whether the efforts were contributing to its overall goals  We recommended that HHS develop relevant outcome measures and HHS concurred  Safety interventions: According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), between 2011 and 2015, over 4,000 people died in crashes involving motor carriers each year  GAO, Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness and Efficiency of Safety Interventions, GAO-17-49 (Washington, D C : Oct  27, 2016)  Further OMB actions could also help agencies make progress in measuring the performance of different program types  In our June 2013 report on initial GPRAMA implementation, we found that agencies experienced common issues in measuring the performance of various types of programs, such as contracts and grants  We recommended that OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to examine those difficulties  Although they took some actions, OMB and the PIC have not yet developed a comprehensive and detailed approach to address these issues  We concluded that, without such an approach, it would be difficult for the PIC and agencies to fully understand these measurement issues and develop a crosscutting approach to help address them  In August 2017, OMB staff stated that efforts related to the future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA) could help address this recommendation  As highlighted in table 1, our work continues to show why it is important for OMB and the PIC to take actions to more fully address our recommendation  Congress has passed legislation to increase the transparency and accessibility of federal performance and financial data  For example, GPRAMA modernized agency reporting requirements to ensure that they make timely, relevant data available to inform decision making by Congress and agency officials as well as improve transparency for the public  Results of our 2017 survey, however, show the need for improvements in the public availability of agency performance information  An estimated 17 percent of managers reported that their agency’s performance information is easily accessible to the public to a great or very great extent, the same percentage as in 2013  Moreover, of the 87 percent of managers that reported there are performance measures for the programs they are involved in, 25 percent reported that they use information obtained from performance measurement when informing the public about how programs are performing to a great or very great extent  This is not statistically different from the 30 percent estimated in 2013  The DATA Act, enacted in 2014, built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending  The act significantly increases the types of data that must be reported, requires government-wide data standards, and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data  OMB provides websites and guidance to make agency performance and financial information available to the public; however, our prior work has identified a number of areas related to Performance gov and the DATA Act where OMB action is needed to improve the transparency and accessibility of this information  Performance gov: Since 2013, our work has identified a number of issues with Performance gov, the website intended to serve as a central source of information on the federal government’s goals and performance  Over time, we have recommended that OMB take a number of specific actions to improve the website  For example, in June 2013, we found that the website offered an inconsistent user experience and presented accessibility and navigation challenges  To clarify the purpose of the website and enhance its usability, we recommended that OMB take steps to systematically collect customer input  In August 2016, we reported that OMB was not meeting all of the reporting requirements for Performance gov, and did not have a plan to develop and improve the website  We recommended that OMB ensure that information presented on Performance gov consistently complies with reporting requirements and develop a plan for the website that includes, among other things, a customer outreach plan  OMB agreed with these recommendations and, in July 2017, OMB staff informed us that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance gov to improve the accessibility of information on the website  To inform this redesign, OMB staff said that they will consider our previous recommendations and plan to engage a wide group of stakeholders, including Congress, agency staff, and interested members of the public and outside organizations  OMB staff anticipated releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 and the redesigned website in February 2018  Under GPRAMA, OMB is required to make available, through Performance gov, quarterly updates on progress toward CAP goals and APGs  As described earlier, in June 2017 OMB announced that reporting to Performance gov has been discontinued through the end of fiscal year 2017 as agencies develop new priority goals  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated, nor does it provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals  OMB’s guidance states that agencies should report the results of progress on their previous APGs in their annual performance reports for fiscal year 2017  Moreover, OMB staff told us that the existing updates on Performance gov for CAP goals, last updated in December 2016, represent the final updates on those goals, although they are not labeled as such on the website  As a result, those interested in progress updates and reported results for the previous priority goals may not know where they will be able to find this information, limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results for decision makers and the public  DATA Act: The DATA Act requires federal agencies to disclose their spending and link this to program activities so that policymakers and the public can more effectively track federal spending  The act has the potential to improve the accuracy and transparency of federal spending information and increase its usefulness for government decision making and oversight  Since the DATA Act became law, OMB and Treasury have taken significant steps to make more complete and accurate federal spending data available  These have included standardizing data element definitions to make it easier to compare different federal agencies’ financial information, and issuing guidance to help agencies submit required data  In May 2017, federal agencies started to report data under the standardized definitions developed under the act  We have made a number of recommendations to address challenges that could affect the consistency and quality of the data  Addressing these recommendations could help ensure that financial data are provided to the public in a transparent and useful manner  For example, in January 2016, we found some standardized data element definitions were imprecise or ambiguous, which could result in inconsistent or potentially misleading reporting  We recommended that OMB provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential issues with the clarity, consistency, and quality of reported data  OMB released guidance in May and November 2016, but in April 2017 we found that additional guidance was needed to help agencies implement certain data definitions to produce data that would be consistent and comparable across agencies  We are in the process of examining the quality of the data that was submitted by agencies in May 2017 and was made available to the public on an early version of the USAspending gov website  We expect to issue the results of this work in fall 2017  Our past work also identified a number of actions agencies need to take to make performance information more transparent  Increasing the accessibility of this information could enhance oversight and accountability of agency performance and results  CAP goals: In May 2016, we found that while selected CAP goal teams were working to develop performance measures to track progress, they were not consistently reporting on their efforts to develop these measures  We recommended that OMB report on Performance gov the actions that CAP goal teams are taking to develop performance measures and quarterly targets to help ensure that measures are aligned with major activities, and ensure that it is possible to track teams’ progress toward establishing measures  While OMB agreed with this recommendation, it did not address it before reporting on the CAP goals was discontinued, as discussed earlier  Customer service standards: As we described earlier, in 2017, an estimated 48 percent of federal managers that indicated they have performance measures for the programs they are involved in also agreed to a great or very great extent that they have customer service performance measures  There has been no statistically significant change relative to our last survey in 2013, or the initial survey in 1997  Relatedly, in October 2014, we reviewed customer service standards at five federal agencies  Customer service standards inform customers about what they have a right to expect when they request services, and the standards should include goals for the quality and timeliness of a service an agency provides to its customers  They should also be easily available to the public so that customers know what to expect, when to expect it, and from whom  In our review of standards at five agencies, however, we found that only Customs and Border Protection had standards that were easily available to the public  We recommended the other four agencies—the United States Forest Service, Federal Student Aid, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—make their standards more easily accessible to the public  As of July 2017, only VBA had done so  Major management challenges: In June 2016, we found that 14 of the 24 CFO Act agencies did not describe their major management challenges in their performance plans, as required by GPRAMA  Furthermore, 22 of the 24 agencies reviewed did not report complete performance information for each of their major management challenges, including performance goals, milestones, indicators, and planned actions that they have developed to address such challenges  As a result, it was not always transparent what these agencies considered to be their major management challenges or how they planned to resolve these challenges  We recommended that the 22 agencies describe their major management challenges in their agency performance plans and include goals, measures, milestones, and information on planned actions and responsible officials  As of August 2017, 8 agencies—the U S  Agency for International Development, Small Business Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Departments of Education, State, and Veterans Affairs—had fully implemented our recommendations; the other 14 agencies had not  Quality of performance information: In September 2015, we found that six selected agencies reported limited information on the actions they are taking to ensure the quality of their performance information for selected APGs, as required by GPRAMA  We recommended that all six of the agencies work with OMB to fully report this information  In response, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA described how they ensure reliable performance information is reported to external audiences  As of June 2017, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Labor had not yet taken actions to address this recommendation by providing more specific explanations of how they ensure reliable performance information is reported for their APGs  Unnecessary reports: GPRAMA requires that OMB guide an annual review of agencies’ plans and reports for Congress and include in the President’s budget a list of those plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative  However, in July 2017, we found that OMB did not implement the report review process on an annual basis, as required  We also found that OMB published the list of agency plans and reports on Performance gov, rather than in the President’s annual budget, where they may be more visible and useful to congressional decision makers and others  Therefore, we recommended that OMB instruct agencies to identify outdated or duplicative reports on an annual basis and submit or reference the list of identified plans and reports with the President’s annual budget  OMB agreed with these recommendations  In July 2017, OMB stated it would include a list of report modification proposals in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget as required by GPRAMA  For all of the unimplemented recommendations described above, we will continue to monitor agencies’ actions  In addition to providing access to performance and financial information, federal agencies can directly engage and collaborate with citizens, nonprofits, academic institutions, and other levels of government using open innovation strategies  Open innovation involves using various tools and approaches to harness the ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside an organization to address an issue or achieve specific goals  In October 2016, we found that in recent years agencies had frequently used five open innovation strategies—singularly or in combination—to collaborate with citizens and encourage their participation in agency initiatives  (See figure 21 ) Our October 2016 report found that agencies can use these strategies for a variety of purposes  To develop new ideas, solutions to specific problems, or new products: For example, from April 2015 to November 2016, the Department of Energy held a prize competition to create more efficient devices that would double the energy captured from ocean waves  According to the competition’s website, the winning team achieved a five-fold improvement  To enhance collaboration and agency capacity by leveraging external resources, knowledge, and expertise: For example, every 2 years since 2009, the Federal Highway Administration has regularly engaged stakeholders to identify and implement innovative ideas that have measurably improved the execution of highway construction projects  To collect the perspectives and preferences of a broad group of citizens and external stakeholders: For example, the Food and Drug Administration used in-person and online dialogue to engage outside stakeholders in the development of an online platform designed to make key datasets easily accessible to the public  Subsequently, in June 2017, we found that OMB, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the General Services Administration (GSA) developed resources to support the use of open innovation strategies by federal agencies  These resources included guidance, staff to assist agencies in implementing initiatives, and websites to improve access to relevant information  For example, GSA developed a step-by-step implementation guide, program management team, and website to help agency staff carry out prize competitions and challenges  Agencies have also developed their own resources, including guidance, staff positions, and websites, to reach specific audiences and to provide tailored support for open innovation strategies they use frequently  For example, NASA’s Solve website provides a central location for the public to find the agency’s challenges and citizen science projects, as well as links to relevant resources  We also evaluated key government-wide guidance for the five strategies listed above to determine the extent to which the guidance reflects leading practices for effectively implementing open innovation initiatives  We identified these practices in our October 2016 report  We found that the guidance for each strategy reflected these practices to differing extents, as shown in figure 22  We made 22 recommendations to GSA, OMB, and OSTP to enhance the guidance  GSA and OMB generally agreed with these recommendations and OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed  We will monitor their progress toward implementing these recommendations  GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers better achieve results and address the federal government’s significant and long-standing governance challenges  Although OMB and agencies have made progress in improving implementation of the act over the years, our work has highlighted numerous opportunities for further improvements  In 2017, OMB removed the priority designation of CAP goals and APGs  For those goals, this action stopped related data-driven reviews and quarterly updates of progress on Performance gov until new priority goals are published next year  What OMB considers to be the final results of CAP goals for fiscal years 2014 to 2017 already are on Performance gov (although not labeled as such)  In addition, agencies may report on their former APGs in their annual fiscal year 2017 performance reports  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated or provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals, limiting transparency and its value to the public  OMB has stated its plans to restart implementation of those provisions in February 2018, with the start of a new goal cycle  We believe it is critical for OMB to do so, given the important role those tools play in addressing key governance challenges and the results we have seen in better managing crosscutting areas and driving performance improvements across the government  In addition, OMB has postponed implementation of the federal program inventory  To date, the inventory has only been developed once, in 2013, despite requirements for regular updates to reflect current budget and performance information  OMB has given a variety of reasons for the delays over the past 4 years—most recently, to determine the right strategy to merge implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements  Although OMB staff told us that they expect to issue guidance by the end of 2018 to resume implementation of the program inventory requirements, they have not provided more specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements  Doing so would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones would help ensure that interested stakeholders, such as federal decision makers and the public, are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories, which in turn could help ensure the inventories meet stakeholders’ needs  A well-developed inventory would provide key program, budget, and performance information in one place to help federal decision makers better understand the federal investment and results in given policy areas, and better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Information architecture offers one approach to developing an inventory  As OMB determines a strategy for implementing the program inventory and develops its guidance, considering such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help it ensure the inventory meets GPRAMA requirements as well as the needs of decision makers and the public  Moreover, such an approach could also help OMB implement our past recommendations related to the program inventory, which are intended to ensure the inventory provides more complete information and is useful to various stakeholders  Our survey of federal managers continues to generally show no improvement in their reported use of performance information in decision making, nor in the employment of practices that can enhance such use  One area where our survey data and past work show promise is through the use of regular, leadership-driven reviews of performance data at agencies, especially when conducted in line with related leading practices  However, GPRAMA only requires these data-driven reviews for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals, both within individual agencies as well as across the government  This is probably why most federal managers were not familiar with the reviews  Identifying and sharing practices for expanding the use of those reviews—such as for additional agency-wide performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could significantly enhance the use of performance information and drive to better and greater results  We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should update Performance gov to explain that quarterly reporting on the fiscal year 2014 through 2017 CAP goals and fiscal year 2016 and 2017 APGs was suspended, and provide the location of final progress updates for these goals  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance— through an update to its Circular No  A-11, a memorandum, or other means—to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should consider—as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory—using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond APGs, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  In comments provided orally and via email, OMB staff agreed with the recommendations in this report  OMB staff also asked us to (1) consider revising the draft title of the report, to better reflect progress in GPRAMA implementation, and (2) clarify our recommendations on issuing guidance for implementing the federal program inventory and expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews, by describing possible actions that could be taken to implement them  We agreed and made revisions accordingly  We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties  This report will also 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) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  The GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) includes a statutory provision for us to periodically evaluate implementation of the act  Since 2012, we have issued over 30 products in response to this provision; this is the third summary report  This report assesses how implementation of GPRAMA has affected the federal government’s progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing crosscutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used in decision making, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government  We reviewed relevant statutory requirements, related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and our recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the four key governance challenges included in our reporting objectives  Specifically, since our last summary report in September 2015, we examined various aspects of GPRAMA implementation in 12 products that covered 35 agencies, including the 24 agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (identified in table 2)  We interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement Council staff to obtain (1) their perspectives on GPRAMA implementation and progress on the four governance challenges, and (2) updates on the status of our past recommendations  We also received updates from other agencies on the status of our past recommendations to them related to GPRAMA implementation  To supplement this review, we administered our periodic survey of federal managers on organizational performance and management issues from November 2016 through March 2017  This survey is comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013  We selected a stratified random sample of 4,395 people from a population of approximately 153,779 mid-level and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch agencies covered by the CFO Act, as shown in table 2  We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database as of September 30, 2015, which was the most recent fiscal year data available at the time  We used file designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory functions  In reporting survey data, we use the term “government-wide” and the phrases “across the government” or “overall” to refer to the 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies  We use the terms “federal managers” and “managers” to collectively refer to both managers and supervisors  We designed the questionnaire to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of results-oriented management topics  These topics include the presence and use of performance measures, any hindrances to measuring performance and using performance information, agency climate, and program evaluation use  To assess implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included questions to collect respondents’ views on various provisions of GPRAMA, such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and related quarterly performance reviews  Similar to the five previous surveys, the sample was stratified by agency and by whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES)  The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15 and career SES or equivalent  Stratifying the sample in this way ensured that the population from which we sampled covered at least 90 percent of all mid- to upper-level managers and supervisors at the departments and agencies we surveyed  Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5-point extent scale ranging from “no extent” to “very great extent ” On most items, respondents also had an option of choosing the response category “no basis to judge/not applicable ” A few items had other options, such as “yes,” “no,” or “do not know,” or a 3-point familiarity scale (“not familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “very familiar”)  We asked many of the items on the questionnaire in our earlier surveys, though we introduced a number of new items in 2013, including the sections about GPRAMA and program evaluations  For 2017, we added a new question on use of performance information (question 12) and a new question on program evaluation (question 24)  Before administering the survey, questions were reviewed by our staff, including subject matter experts, a survey specialist, and a research methodologist  We also conducted pretests of the new questions with federal managers in several of the 24 CFO Act agencies  We changed the wording of subquestions or added clarifying examples based on pretester feedback  To administer the survey, we e-mailed managers in the sample to notify them of the survey’s availability on our website and we included instructions on how to access and complete the survey  To follow up with managers in the sample who did not respond to the initial notice, we emailed or called multiple times to encourage survey participation or provide technical assistance, as appropriate  Similar to our last survey, we worked with OPM to obtain the names of the managers and supervisors in our sample, except for those within selected subcomponents whose names were withheld from the EHRI database  Since Foreign Service officials from the Department of State (State) are not in the EHRI database, we drew a sample for that group with the assistance from State  We worked with officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to gain access to these individuals to maintain continuity of the population of managers surveyed from previous years  The Department of Justice (DOJ) was concerned about providing identifying information (e g , names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) of federal agents to us, so we administered the current survey to DOJ managers in our sample through DOJ officials  To identify the sample of managers whose names were withheld from the EHRI database, we provided DOJ with the last four digits of Social Security numbers, the subcomponent, duty location, and pay grade information  To ensure that DOJ managers received the same survey administration process as the rest of the managers in our sample to the extent possible, we provided DOJ with text for the survey activation and reminder e-mails similar to ones we emailed to managers at other agencies  DOJ administered the survey to these managers and emailed them one reminder to complete the survey  To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the EHRI data elements used to draw our sample of federal managers, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed past analyses of the reliability of this database  For example, we identified cases where the managers’ names were withheld and contacted OPM to discuss this issue  We also checked the names of the managers in our selected sample provided by OPM with the applicable agency contacts to verify these managers were still employed with the agency  We noted discrepancies when they occurred and excluded them from our population of interest, as applicable  On the basis of these procedures, we believe the data we used from the EHRI database are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey  Of the 4,395 managers selected for the 2017 survey, we found that 388 of the sampled managers had retired, separated, or otherwise left the agency or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of interest  These exclusions included managers that the agency could not locate, and therefore we were unable to request that they participate in the survey  We received usable questionnaires from 2,726 sample respondents, for a weighted response rate of about 67 percent of the remaining eligible sample  The weighted response rate across 23 of the 24 agencies ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, while DOJ had a weighted response rate of 36 percent  See the supplemental material for each agency’s response rate  We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis using information from the survey and sampling frame as available  The analysis confirmed discrepancies in the tendency to respond to the survey related to agency and SES status  The analysis also revealed some differences in response propensity by age and GS level; however, the direction and magnitude of the differences on these factors were not consistent across agencies or strata  Our data may be subject to bias from unmeasured sources for which we cannot control  Results, and in particular estimates from agencies with low response rates such as DOJ, should be interpreted with caution because these estimates are associated with a higher level of uncertainty  The overall survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers as described above  The responses of each eligible sample member who provided a usable questionnaire were weighted in the analyses to statistically account for all members of the population  All results are subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling error, including the potential for nonresponse bias as noted above  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn  The magnitude of sampling error will vary across the particular surveys, groups, or items being compared because we (1) used complex survey designs that differed in the underlying sample sizes, usable sample respondents, and associated variances of estimates, and (2) conducted different types of statistical analyses  For example, the 2000 and 2007 surveys were designed to produce agency-level estimates and had effective sample sizes of 2,510 and 2,943, respectively  However, the 1997 and 2003 surveys were designed to obtain government-wide estimates only, and their sample sizes were 905 and 503, respectively  Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically significant  In other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison being made, a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve statistical significance  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  The percentage estimates presented in this report based on our sample for the 2017 survey have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 5 5 percentage points of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted  We also note in this report when we are 95 percent confident that changes from 1997 or 2013 relative to 2017 are statistically significant  Online supplemental material shows the questions asked on the survey along with the percentage estimates and associated 95 percent confidence intervals for each item for each agency and government-wide  In a few instances, we report estimates with larger margins of error because we deemed them reliable representations of given findings due to the statistical significance of larger differences between comparison groups  In all cases, we report the applicable margins of error  In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors  For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information available to respondents, or in how the data were entered into a database or analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results  With this survey, we took a number of steps to minimize these nonsampling errors  For example, our staff with subject matter expertise designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our survey specialists  As noted earlier, the new questions added to the survey were pretested to ensure they were relevant and clearly stated  When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst on our staff verified the analysis programs to ensure the accuracy of the code and the appropriateness of the methods used for the computer-generated analysis  Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data keyed into a database, thus avoiding a source of data entry error  To supplement descriptive analysis of the survey questions, we generated an index to gauge government-wide use of performance information  The index, which was identical to one we reported in 2014, averaged manager’s responses to 11 questions deemed to relate to the concept of performance information use  The index runs from 1 (corresponding to an average value of “to no extent”) to 5 (corresponding to an average value of “to a very great extent”)  We used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of the scale  Our government- wide index score weights each agency’s contribution equally, and provides a relative measure of the use of performance information over time rather than an absolute indicator of the government-wide level of use of performance information  We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to September 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have taken some actions to address our recommendations related to implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); however, the majority of recommendations remain open  Since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011, we have made 100 recommendations in 18 reports to OMB and agencies aimed at improving the act’s implementation (table 3)  Of those 100, OMB and the agencies have implemented 42 recommendations  Fifty-eight recommendations require additional action  Nearly half (47) of our recommendations are directed to OMB  For the 23 recommendations that OMB has implemented, many represent revisions to guidance to better reflect GPRAMA’s requirements or to enhance implementation  Many of the 24 recommendations to OMB that are not implemented deal with long-standing or complex challenges, on which OMB has taken limited action to date  Of those, we have designated 3 as priorities for OMB to address  Agencies have also taken some action on our recommendations, implementing 19 of the 53 recommendations we have made  The following tables present each of the 100 recommendations along with a summary of actions taken to address it  Tables 4 and 5 provide information about our recommendations to OMB that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  Tables 6 and 7 provide information about our recommendations to other agencies that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T  Licht (Assistant Director) and Shannon Finnegan (Assistant Director) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report  Leah Q  Nash (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Fan (Analyst-in-Charge), and Adam Miles (Analyst-in- Charge) supervised the development and administration of the Federal Managers Survey and the resulting supplemental material  Peter Beck, Valerie Caracelli, Karin Fangman, Steven Flint, Robert Gebhart, Ricky Harrison Jr , John Hussey, Jill Lacey, Won Lee, Krista Loose, Meredith Moles, Anna Maria Ortiz, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Cindy Saunders, Stephanie Shipman, Shane Spencer, Andrew J  Stephens, and Brian Wanlass also made key contributions  Ann Czapiewski and Donna Miller developed the graphics for this report  John Ahern, Divya Bali, Jeff DeMarco, Alexandra Edwards, Ellen Grady, Jyoti Gupta, Erinn L  Sauer, and Katherine Wulff verified the information presented in this report  Managing for Results: Implementation of GPRA Modernization Act Has Yielded Mixed Progress in Addressing Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-15-819  Washington, D C : September 30, 2015  Managing For Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Supplemental Material for GAO-17-775: 2017 Survey of Federal Managers on Organizational Performance and Management Issues  GAO-17-776SP  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations  GAO-17-743  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions  GAO-14-747  Washington, D C : September 26, 2014  Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-13-518  GAO-13-519SP  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making  GAO-13-570  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results  GAO-08-1026T  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T  GAO-08-1036SP  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results  GAO-04-38  Washington, D C : March 10, 2004  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies  GAO-01-592  Washington, D C : May 25, 2001  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills  GAO-01-127  Washington, D C : October 20, 2000  The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven  GAO/GGD-97-109  Washington, D C : June 2, 1997  Federal Programs: Information Architecture Offers a Potential Approach for Inventory Development  GAO-17-739  Washington, D C : September 28, 2017  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies’ Experiences in Implementing Strategic Reviews  GAO-17-740R  Washington, D C : September 7, 2017  Federal Reports: OMB and Agencies Should More Fully Implement the Process to Streamline Reporting Requirements  GAO-17-616  Washington, D C : July 14, 2017  Open Innovation: Executive Branch Developed Resources to Support Implementation, but Guidance Could Better Reflect Leading Practices  GAO-17-507  Washington, D C : June 8, 2017  Performance Partnerships: Agencies Need to Better Identify Resource Contributions to Sustain Disconnected Youth Pilot Programs and Data to Assess Pilot Results  GAO-17-208  Washington, D C : April 18, 2017  Open Innovation: Practices to Engage Citizens and Effectively Implement Federal Initiatives  GAO-17-14  Washington, D C : October 13, 2016  Tiered Evidence Grants: Opportunities Exist to Share Lessons from Early Implementation and Inform Future Federal Efforts  GAO-16-818  Washington, D C : September 21, 2016  Performance gov: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Improve Website Usability  GAO-16-693  Washington, D C : August 30, 2016  Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance Processes to Increase Oversight  GAO-16-622  Washington, D C : July 7, 2016  Managing for Results: Agencies Need to Fully Identify and Report Major Management Challenges and Actions to Resolve them in their Agency Performance Plans  GAO-16-510  Washington, D C : June 15, 2016  Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring Progress  GAO-16-509  Washington, D C : May 20, 2016  Managing for Results: Greater Transparency Needed in Public Reporting on the Quality of Performance Information for Selected Agencies’ Priority Goals  GAO-15-788  Washington, D C : September 10, 2015  Pay for Success: Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would Be Helpful as Governments Explore New Financing Mechanisms  GAO-15-646  Washington, D C : September 9, 2015  Managing for Results: Practices for Effective Agency Strategic Reviews  GAO-15-602  Washington, D C : July 29, 2015  Managing for Results: Agencies Report Positive Effects of Data-Driven Reviews on Performance but Some Should Strengthen Practices  GAO-15-579  Washington, D C : July 7, 2015  Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity  GAO-15-25  Washington, D C : November 13, 2014  Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories  GAO-15-83  Washington, D C : October 31, 2014  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service  GAO-15-84  Washington, D C : October 24, 2014  Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance  GAO-14-639  Washington, D C : July 22, 2014  Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals  GAO-14-526  Washington, D C : June 10, 2014  Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups  GAO-14-220  Washington, D C : February 14, 2014  Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance gov  GAO-13-517  Washington, D C : June 6, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-13-174  Washington, D C : April 19, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed  GAO-13-356  Washington, D C : April 16, 2013  Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies  GAO-13-228  Washington, D C : February 27, 2013  Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making  GAO-12-621SP  Washington, D C : June 15, 2012  Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-12-620R  Washington, D C : May 31, 2012  Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address Government Performance Issues  GAO-12-215R  Washington, D C : December 9, 2011 


Report 2: The United States has many international agreements that require treaty partners to provide certain information to IRS, which can help prevent the use of foreign bank accounts to facilitate tax evasion  FATCA goes much further, requiring FFIs to report more detailed information to IRS about their U S  customers annually  These provisions are important developments in efforts to combat tax evasion by U S  persons holding investments in offshore accounts  FATCA generally requires certain taxpayers to report foreign financial accounts and other specified foreign financial assets whose aggregate value exceeds specified thresholds to IRS on Form 8938  These taxpayers must report these assets and income generated from such assets to IRS with their tax return on Form 8938  These thresholds vary by filing status—such as single or married filing jointly—and by domestic or foreign residency  FATCA also promotes third-party reporting of foreign financial assets by requiring a withholding agent to withhold 30 percent on certain payments to an FFI unless the FFI or the jurisdiction in which the FFI is located has entered into an agreement with the United States to report certain account information of their U S  customers  Under such an agreement, participating FFIs report detailed information to IRS annually about accounts held by their U S  customers using an IRS Form 8966, FATCA Report (Form 8966)  According to IRS, FATCA improves visibility into taxable income from foreign sources, and enhances the agency’s ability to identify and pursue taxpayer noncompliance  For example, FATCA allows IRS to compare information reported by FFIs on Forms 8966 to information reported by U S  persons on Forms 8938  According to IRS, this comparison can be used to ensure taxpayers and FFIs are properly reporting foreign financial assets and income from international investments  This type of comparison is a common IRS enforcement technique  For example, IRS can directly compare information it receives from financial institutions’ IRS Form 1099-INT, Interest Income, against a tax return to determine if the taxpayer reported income generated from interest earned  To facilitate FATCA implementation for FFIs operating in jurisdictions with laws that would prohibit FFIs from complying with the terms of the FFI agreement, Treasury developed two alternative intergovernmental agreements (IGA)—Model 1 and Model 2—to facilitate the effective and efficient implementation of FATCA by removing partner jurisdictions’ legal impediments to comply with FATCA reporting requirements, and reducing burdens on FFIs located in partner jurisdictions  FFIs from countries with Model 1 IGAs report information on U S  persons’ accounts to their respective host country tax authorities (HCTAs)  The HCTAs, in turn, compile the information from FFIs and transmit it to IRS  In contrast, FFIs from countries with Model 2 IGAs, or countries treated as not having an IGA in effect, directly report information on U S  persons’ accounts to IRS  Separate from the FATCA requirements, regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) also impose a separate self-reporting requirement for foreign accounts  Specifically, certain taxpayers and residents are required to file an FBAR with FinCEN annually if they have financial interest or signature or other authority over one or more foreign financial accounts with a total of more than $10,000, regardless of whether they reside within or outside the United States  Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies can use information from these reports to combat financial crimes, including terrorist financing and tax evasion  Appendix IV provides a comparison of Form 8938 and FBAR reporting requirements  Figure 1 depicts the flow of foreign financial account information from U S  persons and FFIs to IRS and FinCEN through the FATCA and FBAR reporting processes  As part of the FATCA reporting requirements, IRS collects information on financial accounts through forms and reports submitted by both taxpayers and FFIs  As part of this effort, IRS requires taxpayers to identify their TINs on Forms 8938 they submit  IRS also requires participating FFIs to report the TINs of each account holder who is a specified U S  person on Forms 8966  IRS intends to use reported TINs to link Form 8938 data filed by taxpayers to Form 8966 data filed by the FFIs to ensure that taxpayers and FFIs are properly reporting foreign financial assets  However, IRS often could not link account information collected from FFIs to the account’s owner because of incorrect or missing TINs  In July 2018, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that almost half of new Forms 8966 filed by FFIs did not include a TIN or included an invalid TIN  A consulting firm working with FFIs to implement FATCA reporting requirements told us that FFIs encountered significant challenges obtaining accurate TINs from U S  persons as part of the self-certification process  For instance, FFIs encountered situations where U S  persons provided incomplete or inaccurate TINs—such as Social Security Numbers (SSN) with less than nine digits—on forms used to self-certify their status as U S  persons  FFIs also encountered situations where U S  persons may not have obtained TINs or were unwilling to provide them to FFIs  Additionally, banking associations told us that it has taken time, effort, and expense for FFIs to report TINs, as they had to upgrade computer systems to collect and record TINs from U S  customers  Finally, Treasury told us that jurisdictions that have an IGA with the United States but no legal requirement to collect TINs are not in compliance with the requirements of the IGA  Treasury and IRS determined that some FFIs reporting from countries with Model 1 IGAs needed additional time to implement procedures to obtain and report required U S  TINs for preexisting accounts that are U S  reportable accounts  Consequently, IRS provided a transition period, through the end of 2019, for compliance with the TIN requirements for FFIs under Model 1 IGAs  Specifically, in September 2017, IRS issued a notice modifying procedures for FFIs reporting from countries with Model 1 IGAs to become compliant with TIN reporting requirements for preexisting accounts  For calendar years 2017-2019, IRS will not determine that certain FFIs in countries with Model 1 IGAs are significantly noncompliant with their obligations under the IGA solely as a result of a failure to report U S  TINs associated with the FFI’s U S  reportable accounts, providing they (1) obtain and report the date of birth of each account holder and controlling person whose TIN is not reported, (2) make annual requests for missing TINs from each account holder, and (3) search electronically searchable data maintained by such FFIs for missing required U S  TINs before reporting information that relates to calendar year 2017 to a partner jurisdiction  As a result, even without any further extensions, calendar year 2020 is the earliest IRS will be enforcing requirements for FFIs from countries with Model 1 IGAs to provide accurate and complete information on U S  account holders’ TINs to IRS  Without valid TINs on Forms 8966 submitted by FFIs, according to IRS officials, IRS faces significant hurdles in matching accounts reported by FFIs to those reported by individual tax filers on their Forms 8938  As a result, IRS must rely on information such as names, dates of birth, and addresses that the filers and/or FFIs may not consistently report  Without data that can be reliably matched between Forms 8938 and 8966, IRS’s ability to identify taxpayers not reporting accurate or complete information on specified foreign financial assets is hindered, interfering with its ability to enforce compliance with FATCA reporting requirements, and ensure taxpayers are paying taxes on income generated from such assets  In July 2018, TIGTA reported that IRS lacked success in matching FFI and individual taxpayer data because reports FFIs filed did not include or included invalid TINs  This, in turn, affected IRS’s ability to identify and enforce requirements for individual taxpayers  TIGTA recommended, among other things, that IRS initiate compliance efforts to address and correct missing or invalid TINs on Form 8966 filings from FFIs from countries with Model 2 IGAs or without any IGAs with the United States  IRS management said it disagreed with this recommendation because a system to ensure validation of every TIN upon submission of a Form 8966 would be cost prohibitive  However, IRS management said that IRS would address invalid TINs as they are uncovered on other compliance efforts, such as initiating development of a data product to automate risk assessments across the FATCA filing population  IRS also said it continues efforts to systematically match Form 8966 and Form 8938 data to identify nonfilers and underreporting related to U S  holders of foreign accounts  However, IRS management told us they are waiting until they have a full set of data, including TINs, before doing analysis to develop a compliance strategy  According to TIGTA, IRS management believed that having the FFI’s Global Intermediary Identification Number (GIIN) on Form 8938, which is filed by the taxpayer, would help with matching records  However, Form 8938 instructions identify that the field is optional for taxpayers to complete  TIGTA recommended that to reduce taxpayer burden in obtaining GIINs from FFIs, IRS add guidance to Form 8938 instructions to inform taxpayers on how to use the FFI List Search and Download Tool on the IRS’s website to obtain an FFI’s GIIN  IRS agreed with this recommendation  However, even if an individual taxpayer provided GIINs, IRS may continue to have difficulty matching accounts with U S  taxpayers if the TIN and name of the account holder reported on the Form 8966 do not match the TIN and name of the taxpayer on the Form 8938  IRS officials said they are aware of these difficulties and have attempted to match Forms 8938 and 8966 based on other criteria such as dates of birth  In its response to our draft report, IRS said that all financial institutions and foreign tax authorities that file required account information receive a notification listing administrative and other minor errors contained in their reporting  According to IRS, its Large Business and International division follows up with foreign tax authorities regarding these errors to ensure the tax authorities are working with financial institutions to correct these errors in compliance with the countries’ IGAs  IRS added it has initiated a campaign addressing FFIs that do not meet their compliance responsibilities with respect to account opening requirements  Additionally, IRS drafted a risk acceptance form and tool addressing risks in implementing FATCA compliance and business process capabilities  This risk assessment focused on the limitations IRS faces due to budget constraints, but did not address the specific risks it faces from not receiving complete and valid TINs on U S  account holders  We previously reported that risk management could help stakeholders make decisions about assessing risk, allocating resources, and taking actions under conditions of uncertainty  Key management practices for risk management we identified from our prior work include identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing risks; developing a mitigation plan to address identified risks; implementing the plan; and monitoring, reporting, and controlling risks  Without developing a risk mitigation plan to address risks IRS faces from not receiving complete and valid TINs moving forward, IRS may lose opportunities to adjust its compliance programs to better identify U S  persons who are not fully reporting specified foreign financial assets as required under FATCA  Several IRS databases store data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Form 8938 and/or elements of parent individual tax returns to which the Form 8938 is attached—the filer’s country of residence and filing status—used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers  Additionally, data from these databases and other sources are transferred downstream to IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW)—a database used for research and analytical purposes  We extracted data from copies of Individual Return Transaction File (IRTF) and Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB) data copied into CDW to obtain information reported on Forms 8938 and relevant information from parent tax returns, such as filing status and filers’ country of residence  We found that IRTF and MTRDB had inconsistent and incomplete data  For example, neither database had consistent and complete information on foreign financial account and other asset information submitted by Form 8938 filers  While IRS officials told us that IRTF is the authoritative source for filers of Form 8938, it does not store account and other asset information submitted on Forms 8938  Additionally, IRS officials said MTRDB is not designed to store information submitted on paper filings of Forms 8938 and parent tax returns  Officials from IRS’s Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics (RAAS) division also noted that CDW did not have reliable information from Form 8938 paper filings  Because of the lack of foreign financial asset information from such filings, we could not report complete information on assets reported by Form 8938 filers  Further, IRS does not provide instructions to CDW users on how to extract appropriate data from CDW—such as data copied from IRTF and MTRDB—leading to confusion on which databases to use for extracting Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data  For example, five distinct tables within CDW are required to identify the TIN, parent form, filing status, country of residence, and amount of foreign assets accurately  Without clear explanations of how data in each of these tables relate to each other and to the underlying filings, errors could be introduced into CDW users’ analyses of foreign asset information  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  One attribute of this principle includes processing data into quality information that is appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a timely basis  Additionally, the Internal Revenue Manual states that IRS needs to measure taxpayer compliance so that customer-focused programs and services can be enhanced or developed so that compliance information and tools can be improved  According to IRS officials, IRS researchers have been taking additional steps to obtain and review Form 8938 and parent tax return data stored in the Integrated Production Model (IPM) database  They said IPM is the only database that contains complete data from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Forms 8938 and relevant elements of parent tax returns  IRS officials said that RAAS has been working with IRS’s information technology (IT) division to obtain read-only access to IPM, and import Forms 8938 and 8966 data from IPM into CDW for analysis  However, as of February 2019, this effort has been delayed due to budget constraints  In its response to our draft report, IRS said that obtaining read-only access would require a new technical process and plans to continue working with IT on the feasibility and timeframe for enabling this access  Enabling access to consistent and complete Form 8938 and parent tax return data for compliance staff and researchers from RAAS and other IRS business units would help IRS strengthen its efforts to enforce compliance with FATCA reporting requirements and conduct research to bolster enforcement efforts  However, such efforts may be hampered until IRS can ensure readily available access to such data  We previously recommended that IRS develop a broad strategy, including a timeline and performance measures, for how IRS intends to use FATCA information to improve tax compliance  IRS agreed with this recommendation and developed a strategy for FATCA in July 2013  IRS updated the strategy in 2016 by creating the FATCA Compliance Roadmap as a comprehensive plan to articulate IRS’s priorities to facilitate compliance with FATCA reporting requirements  The roadmap also provided an overview of compliance activities used solely for enforcing FATCA reporting requirements or enhancing existing compliance efforts  However, in July 2018, TIGTA reported that IRS had not updated the FATCA Compliance Roadmap since 2016, and had taken limited or no action on a majority of the planned activities outlined in it  We also found that IRS had not yet evaluated the effects of FATCA, including the effects on voluntary tax compliance  IRS documentation states that only 7 of 31 capabilities outlined in the FATCA Compliance Roadmap were delivered due to funding constraints  As of October 2018, IRS has stopped using the FATCA Compliance Roadmap and has not developed a revised comprehensive plan to manage efforts to leverage FATCA data to improve taxpayer compliance  According to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents, such as the FATCA Compliance Roadmap, to focus on individual compliance campaigns  These include a campaign to match individual tax filers to the reports from FFIs, and another campaign to identify FFIs with FATCA reporting requirements who are not meeting all of their obligations  According to what IRS told us, with the passage of time and as FATCA is becoming more integrated into agency operations, it has moved from updating the broad strategy documents focused on FATCA to working on compliance campaigns that incorporate FATCA into overall tax administration  Additionally, IRS and outside researchers plan to study the role of enforcement in driving overall patterns in reporting offshore assets and income generated from such assets  Though IRS maintains that FATCA is more integrated into its operations, TIGTA’s 2018 report concluded that IRS was still unprepared to enforce compliance with FATCA in part because it took limited or no action on the majority of planned activities outlined in the FATCA Compliance Roadmap  Documenting a framework for using FATCA reporting requirements to improve taxpayer compliance and measure their effect is consistent with three steps we found leading public sector organizations take to increase the accountability of their initiatives: (1) define clear missions and desired outcomes; (2) measure performance to gauge progress; and (3) use performance information as a basis for decision-making  We also previously reported that it is important for IRS to use a documented framework that defines a clear strategy, timeline, and plans for assessment  Having such a framework in place can help IRS better allocate resources and avoid unnecessary costs resulting from not having the necessary or appropriate data available to execute its objectives  In light of the challenges IRS faces to collect, manage, and use FATCA data to improve compliance in a resource-constrained environment, employing a comprehensive plan would help IRS maximize the use of collected data and better leverage individual campaigns to increase taxpayer compliance  Without such a plan, IRS’s ability to collect and leverage data collected under FATCA for compliance enforcement and other purposes is constrained  We could not report on total values of foreign financial assets on Forms 8938 in tax years 2015 and 2016  However, we could provide a range of total maximum account values reported on FBARs during the same period  Specifically, we determined that more than 900,000 individuals filed FBARs in calendar years 2015 and 2016, and declared total maximum values of accounts ranging from about $1 5 trillion to more than $2 trillion each year  A little more than one in five—or about 21 7 percent—of the approximately 404,800 Forms 8938 filed with IRS in tax year 2016 were done so from U S  persons living abroad, with the other 78 3 percent living in the United States  Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of Form 8938 filings from U S  persons living abroad for tax year 2016 were filed on paper (43 3 percent) than Form 8938 filings from U S  persons living in the United States during the same period (14 7 percent)  We extracted these data from IRTF, which IRS officials said is the authoritative source for filers of Form 8938  However, we could not report complete information on foreign financial assets reported by Form 8938 filers because such data are incomplete; as noted above, IRS databases we used to extract Form 8938 data—IRTF and MTRDB—do not include asset information reported on paper filings of Forms 8938  Of the approximately 404,800 Forms 8938 filed by individuals for tax year 2016—the most recent data available—we could access information on residency of filers and reported foreign financial assets from about 277,600 Forms 8938 that did not indicate that foreign financial assets and values were declared on other forms besides the Form 8938  Of the subset of these Forms 8938, more than one quarter—or about 73,500— reported foreign financial assets in amounts that indicate the Form 8938 may have been filed unnecessarily, since they reported specified foreign financial assets with aggregate values at or below reporting thresholds as of the last day of the tax year  Based on available Form 8938 data from tax year 2016, table 2 shows that about 61,900 filings from U S  persons living in the United States and about 11,600 filings from U S  persons living abroad during the same tax year reported specified foreign financial assets with aggregate values at or below end of tax year thresholds  These totals likely understate the total number of Forms 8938 that U S  persons may have filed unnecessarily in tax year 2016; due to data limitations, these totals exclude Forms 8938 without asset information stored in IRS’s databases, including most Forms 8938 filed on paper and Forms 8938 where filers identified that they declared foreign financial assets on other forms besides the Form 8938  There is no clear explanation as to why some U S  persons may have filed Forms 8938 unnecessarily  However, we identified a number of potential reasons from focus groups and other interviews with stakeholder groups  In focus groups we conducted, participants expressed confusion about IRS’s instructions for completing the Form 8938 and information provided on IRS’s website  In the instructions for completing Form 8938, IRS described the specific types of foreign financial assets that are to be reported on Form 8938, and the asset value thresholds that must be met for required reporting, depending on the location of residence and filing status of the taxpayer  IRS also posted responses to frequently asked questions on meeting FATCA reporting requirements on its website, and established a separate page on its website comparing foreign financial assets that must be reported on Form 8938 and/or FBAR  Nonetheless, focus group participants reported confusion on whether and how to report investment and retirement accounts and compulsory savings plans managed by their country of residence  In a meeting we convened with an organization representing tax attorneys, they told us taxpayers are unsure about what account values to report on the Form 8938  Tax practitioners participating in another focus group added that they filed Forms 8938 regardless of the aggregate value of the assets because it was too cumbersome for them to identify whether the assets exceeded reporting thresholds as of the end of the year or at any time during the year  IRS officials also cited a number of possible reasons why U S  persons may be filing Forms 8938 unnecessarily  For example, it may be easier for U S  persons to report all specified foreign financial assets they hold on the Form 8938, rather than determine whether the value of such assets met applicable thresholds  IRS officials also said that U S  persons might complete a Form 8938 for reasons besides meeting tax-filing requirements, such as providing evidence of assets for a loan application  IRS’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights states that taxpayers are entitled to clear explanations of the laws and IRS procedures in all tax forms, instructions, publications, notices, and correspondence  Furthermore, one of IRS’s strategic goals is to empower taxpayers by making it easier for them to understand and meet their filing, reporting, and payment obligations  IRS officials said they hosted sessions for tax practitioners at IRS Nationwide Tax Forums to address FATCA reporting requirements  However, they said IRS has not taken direct steps to identify or implement actions to further clarify instructions and related guidance on IRS’s website for completing Form 8938, such as information on which foreign financial assets to report, how to calculate asset values, and determine whether such values exceed required reporting thresholds  Additionally, IRS officials said they have not conducted additional outreach to educate taxpayers on required reporting thresholds under FATCA, or notify Form 8938 filers of instances where aggregate values of specified foreign financial assets reported on Forms 8938 were below reporting thresholds  IRS officials said they have not made efforts to determine whether there is a pattern of unnecessary Form 8938 filings that they could address  Rather, they said they believed resources should be devoted to FATCA implementation in general  However, as shown above, we have identified many tens of thousands of instances where U S  persons may have filed Forms 8938 unnecessarily  Without assessing factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting—and identifying or implementing actions to further clarify and educate taxpayers on FATCA reporting requirements—IRS is missing opportunities to help taxpayers understand their filing and reporting obligations and minimize their compliance burdens while properly meeting their tax obligations  Additionally, IRS may be missing opportunities to reduce costs in processing forms that taxpayers did not need to file  Because of overlapping statutory reporting requirements, IRS and FinCEN—both bureaus within Treasury—collect duplicative foreign financial asset data using two different forms (Form 8938 and FBAR)  Our evaluation and management guide for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication states that overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries  Table 3 shows that individuals required to report foreign financial assets on Form 8938, in many cases, also must meet FBAR reporting requirements  For example, specified individuals with foreign financial accounts exceeding $50,000 in aggregate value on the last day of the tax year must file both Form 8938 and FBAR if such values exceed the minimum Form 8938 thresholds; these thresholds depend on the filing status and address of specified individuals  Table 3 also shows that, in many cases, specified interests in foreign financial assets as defined in Form 8938 instructions are the same as the financial interest in such assets under FBAR  Further, as noted in table 3, the overlapping requirements lead to IRS and FinCEN collecting the same information on certain types of foreign financial assets  For example, both Form 8938 and FBAR collect information on foreign financial accounts for which a person has signature authority and a financial interest in the account  Form 8938 and FBAR also both collect duplicative information on several other types of foreign financial assets, such as foreign mutual funds and accounts at a foreign financial institution that include foreign stock or securities  Overlapping reporting requirements result in most Form 8938 filers also filing an FBAR during the same reporting year  Table 4 shows that close to 75 percent of Form 8938 filers in tax years 2015 and 2016 percent also filed an FBAR for the same year using the same TIN  Overlapping requirements to file both Form 8938 and FBAR increases the compliance burden on U S  persons and adds complexity that can create confusion, potentially resulting in inaccurate or unnecessary reporting  Focus group participants in all five countries included in our study affirmed that U S  persons experienced confusion and frustration with having to report duplicative foreign financial asset information on both forms  Focus group participants and others we interviewed also noted that U S  persons incurred additional financial costs to complete and file both Form 8938 and FBAR  For instance, one tax practitioner in Canada said the charge was about $190 to report four-to-five accounts on an FBAR in addition to charging about $540 for basic tax return packages  An accounting firm based in Japan typically charged between $300 and $800 to complete a Form 8938 and between $150 and $500 to complete an FBAR, depending on the number of accounts reported on the forms  Proposed revisions to regulations implementing BSA proposed by FinCEN may also increase the number of duplicative foreign financial accounts reported on Form 8938 and FBAR  Currently, U S  persons must report detailed information on all foreign financial accounts on Form 8938 if the value of such accounts and other specified foreign financial assets reaches applicable reporting thresholds  In contrast, U S  persons are generally exempted from reporting detailed account information on FBARs if they report having signature or other authority over 25 or more foreign financial accounts  FinCEN’s proposed revisions to BSA regulations would eliminate the exemption, requiring U S  persons to report detailed information on all foreign financial accounts in which he or she has a financial interest if the value of such accounts exceed FBAR’s $10,000 reporting threshold  FinCEN estimated that it will receive account information for the first time on about 5 4 million foreign financial accounts if it finalizes the proposed revisions  In turn, these revisions may lead to increased filings of duplicative asset data on both Form 8938 and FBAR, as U S  persons may have to report detailed information on all foreign financial accounts using both forms  U S  persons also face exposure to two different penalty regimes for any failures in accurately and completely reporting foreign financial asset information to two bureaus within Treasury—IRS and FinCEN  Officials from one organization representing U S  persons living abroad said penalties due to failure to report certain accounts on one or both forms can be significant, even if little or no taxes are owed on those accounts  The duplicative reporting of foreign financial asset data on two different forms also creates additional costs to the government to process and store the same or similar information twice, and enforce reporting compliance with both requirements  In 2012, we recommended that Treasury direct the Office of Tax Policy, IRS, and FinCEN to determine whether the benefits of implementing a less duplicative reporting process exceed the costs and, if so, implement that process  Treasury did not implement our recommendation  While we continue to believe that the agencies should have considered whether less duplicative reporting could have been implemented, we do recognize that FATCA and FBAR were enacted under two different statutes to serve different purposes  As mentioned above, according to IRS, FATCA improves visibility into taxable income from foreign sources and enhances the agency’s ability to identify and pursue taxpayer noncompliance  In contrast, the information reported on the FBAR is collected to identify money laundering and other financial crimes; law enforcement agencies can use BSA information—including information collected from FBARs— to aid regulatory and criminal investigations  Additionally, data collected from Form 8938 and FBAR are used in different systems for use by different bureaus within Treasury  Fully addressing issues stemming from overlapping reporting requirements and the resulting collection of duplicative information—while at the same time ensuring that such information can be used for tax compliance and law enforcement purposes—can only be done by modifying the statutes governing the requirements  Further, IRS and FinCEN have varying degrees of access to foreign financial asset information collected from Form 8938 and FBAR to enforce tax compliance and financial crime laws  FATCA was enacted, in part, to improve visibility into taxable income from foreign sources  However, information provided on Forms 8938 is taxpayer return information protected by section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which generally prohibits IRS from disclosing information provided on Forms 8938  IRS can share return information with other government agencies and others when it is allowed by statute  For example, under section 6103, IRS may disclose return information related to taxes imposed under the IRC—such as self-employment income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax and income tax withholding—to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act  However, according to FinCEN officials, FinCEN, law enforcement, and regulators often cannot access information submitted on Forms 8938  While section 6103 provides other exceptions to disclosure prohibitions—such as allowing IRS to share return information with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of nontax criminal laws—such information is generally only accessible pursuant to a court order  As noted above, information reported on the FBAR can be used by law enforcement agencies to aid regulatory and criminal investigations  This includes IRS, which has been delegated responsibility from FinCEN to enforce compliance with FBAR reporting requirements  IRS has used FBAR information in addressing taxpayer noncompliance with reporting and paying taxes on foreign assets and income  For example, taxpayers accepted into one of IRS’s offshore voluntary disclosure programs must have filed amended or late FBARs as part of their program applications  Investigators from IRS’s Criminal Investigation division generally reviewed applications to determine if the taxpayer has made a complete and truthful disclosure  IRS examiners can also use information from case files of program participants—such as information disclosed on FBARs— to identify new groups of taxpayers suspected of hiding income offshore  IRS can then choose to continue offering offshore programs and encourage these newly identified groups of taxpayers, as well as all taxpayers with unreported offshore accounts, to disclose their accounts voluntarily  In addition to eliminating overlapping reporting requirements, harmonizing statutes governing foreign financial asset reporting and use of information collected on such assets to make such statutes fully consistent could yield additional benefits to both IRS and the law enforcement community  Specifically, and as shown in appendix IV, there are specified foreign financial assets reported on Form 8938—such as foreign hedge funds and foreign private equity funds—that are not required to be reported on an FBAR  In contrast, there are other specified foreign financial assets reported on an FBAR—such as indirect interests in foreign financial assets through an entity—that are not required to be reported on Form 8938  Without congressional action to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements, IRS and FinCEN will neither be able to coordinate efforts to collect and use foreign financial asset information, nor reduce unnecessary burdens faced by U S  persons in reporting duplicative foreign financial asset information  Two reporting systems for sharing foreign account information from foreign financial institutions are in operation globally—FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard (CRS)  According to officials from banking associations and a consulting firm, FFIs in the countries where we examined FATCA implementation encountered challenges implementing and now maintaining two overlapping reporting systems for collecting and transmitting account information to other countries for a seemingly similar purpose, and collecting sufficient information from customers to ensure they meet the requirements of both systems  As noted above, we previously identified overlap as occurring when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries  According to an IRS official, collecting account information under FATCA ushered in an era of greater transparency; as noted above, FATCA’s passage sought to reduce tax evasion by creating greater transparency and accountability with respect to offshore accounts and other assets held by U S  taxpayers  When FATCA was first introduced, there was no international platform to share account information between countries  The United States and other countries worked together to reach an agreement on the electronic formatting that would be used to share the information  Other countries tax authorities’ became more interested in understanding the financial assets held abroad by their residents through an exchange of account information among themselves  In response, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) established the CRS reporting system for automatic exchange of information among member countries  According to the OECD, CRS was developed with a view to maximize efficiency and reduce cost for financial institutions  Thus, CRS drew extensively on the intergovernmental approach used to implement FATCA reporting requirements for FFIs  Countries participating in CRS exchange account information with each other using OECD’s Common Transmission System, which was modeled on FATCA’s International Data Exchange System  Figure 2 depicts the flow of account information between countries under FATCA and CRS  CRS reporting requirements are in many ways similar to FATCA, including required reporting of the account holders’ name and address, taxpayer identification number, account number, account balance, and income and sales proceeds  However, the requirements differ in significant ways  The biggest differences in requirements are driven by the nature of the U S  tax system  The United States, like many countries, generally taxes citizens and resident aliens on their worldwide income regardless of where that income is earned  However, the United States differs from other countries because it generally subjects U S  citizens who reside abroad to U S  taxation in the same manner as U S  residents  In contrast to U S  policy, most other countries do not tax their citizens if they reside in a country other than their country of citizenship  Further, IGAs implementing FATCA require FFIs to report the foreign-held accounts of U S  citizens and residents—including resident aliens—while CRS requires financial institutions in jurisdictions participating in CRS to report on almost all accounts held by nonresidents of the reporting country  Appendix V provides more detailed information on differences in reporting requirements, due diligence requirements, and definitions under FATCA and CRS  These differences in tax systems drive variations in due diligence procedures between FATCA and CRS  For example, FATCA aims to identify whether an account holder at a foreign institution is a U S  person based on citizenship and tax residency information  In contrast, CRS aims to identify the tax residency of all account holders of a financial institution, and does not consider citizenship  Due to the multilateral nature of CRS, if an account holder is determined on the basis of the due diligence procedures to have residency in two or more countries, information would be exchanged with all jurisdictions in which the account holder is determined a resident for tax purposes  Under CRS rules, information about foreign accounts held by a U S  citizen with a tax residence abroad would not be reported to IRS, but rather to the jurisdiction in which they were a resident for tax purposes  Because the United States taxes the worldwide income of U S  citizens, CRS rules would need to require identification of account holders’ citizenship in member countries where they are residents if FATCA were to be aligned with CRS  Table 5 shows a comparison of individuals reported to IRS under FATCA and hypothetically under CRS  Treasury and IRS, as part of its 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan, are considering modifying certain elements of the existing FATCA regulations  For instance, Treasury and IRS are considering coordinating certain documentation requirements for participating FFIs with the requirements under IGAs  In December 2018, Treasury and IRS also proposed regulations intended, in part, to reduce the burdens of FATCA  The proposed regulations included a clarification of the definition of an investment entity that is similar to the guidance published by OECD interpreting the definition of a “managed by” investment entity under CRS  If the United States wanted to adopt CRS, some of the key differences between FATCA and CRS—as outlined above and in appendix V—could be aligned through regulation while others would require legislation  According to Treasury officials, to align FATCA and CRS, Congress would need to revise statutes to: provide for the collection of information for accounts that residents of partner jurisdictions maintain at U S  financial institutions; require certain U S  financial institutions to report the account balance (including, in the case of a cash value insurance contract or annuity contract, the cash value or surrender value) for all financial accounts maintained at a U S  office and held by foreign residents; expand the current reporting required with respect to U S  source income paid to accounts held by foreign residents to include similar non-U S  source payments; require financial institutions to report the gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of property held in, or with respect to, a financial account; and require financial institutions to report information with respect to financial accounts held by certain passive entities with substantial foreign owners  While better aligning FATCA and CRS to some extent is possible, anything short of the United States fully adopting CRS would not fully eliminate the burdens of overlapping requirements that FFIs must currently meet under the two different systems  While having the United States adopt the CRS reporting system in lieu of FATCA could benefit FFIs that may otherwise have to operate two overlapping reporting systems, it would result in no additional benefit to IRS in terms of obtaining information on U S  accounts  Additionally, it could generate additional costs and reporting burdens to U S  financial institutions that would need to implement systems to meet CRS requirements  The extent of these costs is unknown  Further, adoption of CRS would create the circumstance where foreign accounts held by U S  citizens with a tax residence in partner jurisdiction—including U S  citizens who have a U S  tax obligation—would not be reported to IRS  Tax practitioners and others we interviewed said that U S  persons living abroad—whether or not they are required to complete a Form 8938—risk being denied access to foreign financial services  U S  persons and tax practitioners located in four of the five countries where we conducted focus groups and interviews reported that some U S  persons and U S - owned businesses encountered difficulties opening bank accounts with FFIs after FATCA was enacted, with some FFIs closing U S  persons’ existing accounts or denying them opportunities to open new accounts  One focus group participant, for example, said that the financial institution closed down all accounts including business checking, savings, and money market accounts after FATCA was implemented, requiring this individual to find a local resident who could co-sign on a new account  Costs FFIs would incur from implementing FATCA were cited as a significant factor in increasing barriers faced by U S  persons in accessing foreign financial services  Officials from one organization representing tax attorneys said that as a result of costs associated with FATCA implementation, FFIs have found it less burdensome to close accounts of U S  persons or require the accounts to be moved to a Securities and Exchange Commission registered affiliate than comply with FATCA  Tax practitioners and an official from a bankers association added that because FFIs may gain only small margins of profit from U S  persons, FFIs may believe it is too troublesome to do business with them  Additionally, officials from a foreign government agency told us that because FATCA is expensive for FFIs to continue implementing, banks in their country might charge U S  persons seeking access to financial services additional fees to account for FATCA implementation costs  Tax practitioners, consultants working with FFIs to implement FATCA reporting requirements, and the National Taxpayer Advocate told us that FFIs with smaller asset sizes such as smaller trust companies were more prone to decline business with U S persons  Officials from an advocacy group representing U S  persons living abroad told the National Taxpayer Advocate that some smaller banks declined U S  persons as customers as a business decision, believing it would cost more for them to comply with FATCA reporting requirements than maintain U S  expatriates’ accounts  Banking associations we interviewed said that decisions made by FFIs on whether to accept U S  persons as customers also depends on the overall risks and benefits of taking on individual U S

ground_truth: Full implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform the federal government and make it more effective. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to review the act's implementation. This report assesses how GPRAMA implementation has affected the federal government's progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing cross-cutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and GAO's recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the key governance challenges. GAO also interviewed OMB staff and surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,395 federal managers from 24 agencies on various performance and management topics. With a 67 percent response rate, the survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made some progress in more fully implementing the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), but GAO's work and 2017 survey of federal managers highlight numerous areas where improvements are needed. Cross-cutting issues: Various GPRAMA provisions are aimed at addressing cross-cutting issues, such as cross-agency and agency priority goals and related data-driven reviews of progress towards those goals. To ensure alignment with the current administration's priorities, OMB's 2017 guidance removed the priority status of those goals, which stopped quarterly data-driven reviews and related public progress reports until new goals are published. OMB plans to resume implementation of these provisions in February 2018. GPRAMA also requires OMB and agencies to implement an inventory of federal programs, which could help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, GAO found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory. Since then, OMB has postponed updating the inventory, citing among other reasons the passage of subsequent laws. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory and specific time frames for doing so. A systematic approach to developing the inventory could help ensure it provides useful information for decision makers and the public. Performance information: Survey results show federal managers generally reported no improvements in their use of performance information in decision making for various management activities, or practices that can enhance such use, since GAO's 2013 survey. For example, the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (an estimated 33 percent in 2017) is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013 (44 percent). In contrast, managers who were familiar with and whose programs were subject to quarterly data-driven reviews reported that those reviews were used to make progress toward agency priority goals. Identifying and sharing practices to expand the use of such reviews—for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could lead to increased use of performance information. Daily operations: Agencies have made progress in developing results-oriented cultures but need to take additional actions. GAO's past work found that high-performing organizations use performance management systems to help individuals connect their daily activities to organizational goals. In 2017, about half of federal managers reported using performance information when setting expectations with employees (no change from GAO's last survey in 2013). Transparent and open government: GAO's past work identified a number of needed improvements to Performance.gov, the central government-wide website required by GPRAMA. The site is to provide quarterly updates on priority goals in effect through September 2017, but those updates stopped in December 2016. According to OMB, the existing information for cross-agency priority goals is the final update, and agencies should publish final updates on their priority goals in annual performance reports. Performance.gov does not provide users with this information, thereby limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results. In addition to following through on plans to resume implementation of key GPRAMA provisions, GAO recommends that OMB (1) consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory, (2) revise guidance to provide specific time frames for inventory implementation, (3) identify and share practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews, and (4) update Performance.gov to explain that reporting on priority goals was suspended and provide the location of final progress updates. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.

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



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



Report 2:  persons, shaped in part from risks in not meeting FATCA reporting requirements  Representatives of a banking association and an advocacy group told us that some FFIs decided to avoid doing business with U S  persons after they became concerned about potential penalties for failure to comply—either willfully or in error—with FATCA reporting requirements  One banking association added that such errors could affect other aspects of FFIs’ relationships with the U S  government, such as nonprosecution agreements made with the U S  Department of Justice  Officials from one consulting firm that helped FFIs meet FATCA reporting requirements added that FFIs’ determination of risk depends on many layers, such as the value of clients’ assets or the country in which clients reside or possess citizenship  After FATCA’s implementation, according to officials from the consulting firm, FFIs decided to turn away U S  persons in some cases because the benefits of doing business with U S  persons were less than the potential risks  For example, if a U S  person only maintained a payroll account, the FFI may determine it would not make enough money to account for risks in incorrectly identifying the status of the customer as a U S  or non-U S  person  However, focus group participants from two countries said that FFIs may agree to accept U S persons as customers if they have higher account balances that offset risks from FATCA reporting requirements  One focus group participant, for instance, said banks in his country will do business with a U S  person if he or she has more than $500,000 in assets  Additionally, U S  persons and tax practitioners we interviewed said that other factors such as language barriers and U S  regulations designed to prevent money laundering may also inhibit U S  persons’ access to brokerage accounts while overseas  Focus group participants and others we interviewed said that Form 8938 reporting requirements contributed to denials of employment and promotion opportunities for U S  persons living abroad  Treasury officials noted that requirements imposed by FATCA do not directly hinder U S  persons from gaining employment or promotion opportunities overseas  However, focus group participants, a consulting firm, and a foreign government agency noted that foreign-owned companies and nonprofit organizations such as churches did not want to hire or promote U S  persons because they wanted to avoid exposing information to the U S  government on their organizations’ accounts and client trust accounts where the U S  person would have signature authority  As noted above, a U S  person is generally required to report on the Form 8938 foreign financial accounts for which the person has signature authority if he or she has a financial interest in the account  Focus group participants and others noted that such requirements have adversely affected the ability of U S  persons to serve on a corporate board or in a nonprofit organization, or maintain business relationships  Treasury and Department of Commerce officials stationed in one country included in our review added that FATCA implementation has played a role in dissuading foreign-owned corporations in some Asian countries from considering U S  persons for corporate leadership positions such as directorships  This is in part because FATCA has triggered additional paperwork burden and operating costs for onboarding U S  employees since they have had to help them meet Form 8938 reporting requirements  Two advocacy groups representing U S  persons living abroad added that it is also harder for U S -based companies to justify relocating U S  persons overseas and paying for such relocations since they also have had to help their U S  employees meet Form 8938 reporting requirements in addition to meeting other tax filing requirements  U S  embassy documents indicate there was increased demand for Social Security Numbers (SSN) since FATCA’s passage in 2010, driven in part by U S  citizens applying for an SSN to gain access to foreign financial services or resolve outstanding U S  tax obligations before completing renunciation  However, officials from two organizations representing Americans living abroad cited significant challenges faced by some U S  persons living abroad in obtaining SSNs required to meet their U S  tax obligations or obtain financial services  U S  persons living abroad might not possess an SSN because their parents did not obtain one for them as a minor  Often, this may have been due to the parents leaving the United States when the child was young  State officials also said that U S  citizens applying for U S  passports while overseas frequently forget their SSNs or do not know if their parents ever applied for an SSN on their behalf  Officials from organizations representing U S  persons living abroad added that without an SSN, these persons are unable to claim refunds or other tax benefits when filing their tax returns, or participate in IRS programs to voluntarily disclose previously unreported tax liabilities and assets  Additionally, some might be unable to gain or maintain access to financial accounts or other assets in their countries of residence without an SSN  According to these officials and tax practitioners we interviewed, U S  persons living abroad face greater challenges in obtaining SSNs than those living in the United States  For instance, they faced difficulties obtaining documentation from the United States that the Social Security Administration (SSA) requires with SSN applications; traveling to Social Security offices and U S  embassies or consulates to certify documents or submit applications in person; and receiving valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to file tax returns or participate in offshore disclosure programs  SSA officials also identified several challenges U S  persons experience when applying for an SSN from abroad  For instance, SSA officials said that efforts to authenticate documents submitted with SSN applications can cause delays for U S  persons living abroad in obtaining an SSN  Additionally, SSN applicants living abroad face significantly longer wait times than applicants living in the United States once their applications are processed  According to SSA officials, after an application is processed, it can take 3 to 6 months–-depending on the country’s mail service–-for an individual to receive a Social Security Card  This is significantly longer than the 2-week period it takes SSN applicants to receive a card after mailing in their applications from within the United States  According to Department of State (State) data, the annual number of approvals of requests for renunciations of U S  citizenships increased nearly 178 percent during a 6-year period, from 1,601 in 2011—the year after FATCA was enacted—to 4,449 in 2016, the most recent year to which full data on renunciations were available  According to U S  embassy documents and information provided by focus group participants and interviewees across all the countries we examined, FATCA was the reason or a contributing factor in some of these decisions and the resulting increase in total renunciations  Specific effects of FATCA implementation contributing to decisions to renounce U S  citizenship included reduced access to foreign financial services and employment or promotion opportunities in a foreign-owned company—as identified above from our document reviews, focus groups, and interviews—and burdens in meeting FATCA reporting requirements  However, the extent to which FATCA implementation contributed to increased renunciations is unclear  State officials said that data are unavailable to determine the extent to which these renunciation decisions were the direct result of FATCA because State has no legal obligation to collect information on the motivation behind renunciation of citizenship  In response to concerns about the availability of foreign financial services, Treasury implemented regulations that allow certain low-risk local FFIs to be deemed compliant with FATCA, but only if the FFIs do not implement policies or practices that discriminate against opening or maintaining accounts for specified U S  persons  Treasury and State also previously established joint strategies to address these challenges  For instance, Treasury and State developed guidance on FATCA that was posted on embassy websites to educate U S  persons and others  Additionally, Treasury and State officials conducted outreach events and workshops through U S  embassies and American chambers of commerce worldwide to provide information on FATCA and other tax filing requirements, According to State officials, the U S  embassies in at least two countries—Switzerland and France—also worked with foreign officials and/or FFIs to increase access to financial services for U S  citizens residing in those countries  For instance, Treasury and State officials reached agreements with FFIs in Switzerland to provide a wider range of financial services to U S  persons  Similarly, in 2017, SSA and State implemented an interagency agreement to streamline processes for providing SSNs to U S  persons living abroad after FATCA’s implementation in 2010  SSA officials said they are also in discussions with State on improving SSA’s website to include more transparent, specific information for SSN overseas applicants about SSA documentation requirements  Tax practitioners, advocacy groups, and Treasury officials we interviewed said FFIs have become more willing to accept U S  persons as customers compared to when FATCA was enacted in 2010  However, U S  persons living abroad continue to face issues gaining access to foreign financial services  For example, in a September 2018 letter sent by the Chair of the Finance Committee of the Netherlands House of Representatives to a member of Congress, U S  citizens born outside the United States and who have never lived, studied, or worked in the United States are effectively being denied access to financial services in the Netherlands  Focus group participants added that some banks will reject U S  clients or charge heavy fees for them to open an account  Agencies have ongoing efforts to address FATCA-related issues, as listed below, but some are ad hoc, fragmented, or otherwise not part of a broader effort between Treasury and other agencies such as State or SSA to use ongoing collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information on such issues, and jointly develop and implement steps to address them: Treasury officials said they are participating in discussions with FFIs to address residual issues with access to foreign financial services  However, they said they have not involved other agencies in these discussions  IRS officials, in response to concerns from the French government, said they are developing a program to help streamline foreign asset- related tax compliance requirements for a small group of U S  born citizens that have been French residents most of their lives without an SSN, and—according to State officials—did not wish to take the necessary steps to renounce their citizenship  However, no effort has been made to address these issues more broadly  State encouraged U S  citizens to alert the nearest U S  embassy of any practices they encounter with regard to the provision of financial services  State documents noted that some Americans have been turned away by banks or required to meet a higher deposit threshold in part because of FATCA reporting requirements  State documentation also noted that there have been cases of U S  citizens with existing bank accounts who have been asked to close them  However, State documentation we reviewed does not highlight collaborative efforts currently underway with Treasury or other agencies to address banking access issues U S  persons living abroad are presently encountering worldwide  As described above, SSA and State streamlined processes and policies for U S  persons abroad seeking to obtain SSNs  However, SSA officials said they have not been involved in any ongoing efforts involving Treasury to identify systemic issues and related solutions involving SSNs for the purposes of tax compliance and citizenship renunciations  Treasury officials said they spoke with SSA officials about problems U S  persons living abroad face in obtaining SSNs, but SSA believed that cycle times for processing SSN applications submitted by U S  persons living abroad were not significantly greater than for applications submitted by U S  persons living in the United States, although mailing times could vary significantly and take up to 3 to 6 months  We have previously identified key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration, including defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results  One goal in IRS’s strategic plan is to collaborate with external partners proactively to improve tax administration, while objectives in SSA’s strategic plan include improving service delivery and expanding service delivery options  Additionally, according to State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs website, one of State’s key priorities is to protect the interests of U S  citizens overseas, such as through ensuring responsive and efficient provision of consular services overseas  As noted above, there are a host of ongoing issues and challenges for U S  persons living abroad from implementation of FATCA, such as loss of access to foreign financial services, denial of employment and promotion opportunities overseas, and difficulty obtaining SSNs from abroad  However, Treasury currently lacks a collaborative mechanism to coordinate efforts with other agencies to address these issues, and Treasury officials said they do not plan to establish them  Without effective collaborative mechanisms to monitor and share information and implement cross-agency solutions, future efforts to address such issues will continue to be fragmented and less effective than they otherwise could be  In enacting FATCA, Congress sought to reduce tax evasion by creating greater transparency and accountability over offshore assets held by U S  taxpayers  Because of FATCA, IRS receives information on foreign financial assets from hundreds of thousands of filers annually  IRS could use this information to help ensure taxpayers holding offshore assets report and pay taxes owed on income generated from such assets  However, to take full advantage of the information, IRS must address key challenges  Specifically, Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) reported by FFIs are often inaccurate or incomplete, which makes it difficult for IRS to match information reported by FFIs to individual taxpayers  As such, IRS must develop a plan to mitigate the risks that these data issues pose to agency efforts to identify and combat taxpayer noncompliance  Lack of consistent, complete, and readily available Form 8938 and related parent individual tax return data also affects IRS’s compliance activities, making it more difficult for IRS business units to extract and analyze FATCA data to improve tax compliance efforts and reduce tax revenue loss from income generated from offshore assets  At the same time, IRS has stopped following its FATCA Compliance Roadmap it developed in 2016 because, according to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents to focus on individual compliance campaigns  However, in light of the challenges IRS continues to face in fully integrating FATCA information into its compliance programs, it will not maximize use of such information and effectively leverage individual compliance campaigns unless it employs a comprehensive plan that enables IRS to better leverage such campaigns to improve taxpayer compliance  Our analysis of available data indicates that many of the Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016 may have been filed unnecessarily  Factors that are contributing to this unnecessary reporting are unclear  While IRS has provided instructions and guidance on its website for completing Form 8938, focus group participants and tax practitioners reported confusion on whether and how to report investments in foreign accounts  Taking steps to identify and address factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting would help reduce taxpayer burden and reduce processing costs for IRS  Reporting requirements for foreign financial assets under FATCA overlap with reporting requirements under FBAR  These overlapping requirements—implemented under two different statutes—have resulted in most taxpayers filing Forms 8938 also filing FBARs with FinCEN  Duplicative filings on foreign financial assets cause confusion, frustration, and compliance burdens for taxpayers  Duplicative filings also increased costs to the government to process and store the same or similar information  Modifying the statutes governing the requirements can fully address the issues outlined above, and can allow for the use of FATCA information for prevention and detection of financial crimes  This is similar to other statutory allowances for IRS to disclose return information for other purposes, such as for determining Social Security income tax withholding  Lastly, FATCA has created challenges for some U S  persons living abroad that go beyond increasing their tax compliance burdens  Some U S  persons living abroad are still facing issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs  Treasury, State, and SSA have taken some steps to address these issues both separately and in coordination with each other  However, Treasury, as the agency ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA, currently lacks a collaborative mechanism with State and SSA to address ongoing issues  Establishing a formal means to collaboratively address burdens faced by Americans abroad from FATCA can help agencies develop effective solutions to mitigate such burdens  We are making the following matter for congressional consideration: Congress should consider amending the Internal Revenue Code, Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and other statutes, as needed, to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements for the purposes of tax compliance and detection, and prevention of financial crimes, such as by aligning the types of assets to be reported and asset reporting thresholds, and ensuring appropriate access to the reported information  We are making the following four recommendations to IRS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs  (Recommendation 1) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that appropriate business units conducting compliance enforcement and research have access to consistent and complete data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Form 8938 and elements of parent individual tax returns  As part of this effort, the Commissioner should ensure that IRS provides clear guidance to the business units for accessing such data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse  (Recommendation 2) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts  The plan should document and track activities over time to ensure individuals and FFIs comply with FATCA reporting assess and mitigate data quality risks from FFIs; improve the quality, management, and accessibility of FATCA data for compliance, research, and other purposes; and establish, monitor, and evaluate compliance efforts involving FATCA data intended to improve voluntary compliance and address noncompliance with FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 3) The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take steps, as appropriate, to address the issue  Depending on the results of the assessment, potential options may include: identifying and implementing steps to further clarify IRS Form 8938 instructions and related guidance on IRS’s website on determining what foreign financial assets to report, and how to calculate and report asset values subject to reporting thresholds; and conducting additional outreach to educate taxpayers on required reporting thresholds, including notifying taxpayers that may have unnecessarily filed an IRS Form 8938 to reduce such filings  (Recommendation 4) We are also making the following recommendation to Treasury: The Secretary of the Treasury should lead efforts, in coordination with the Secretary of State and Commissioner of Social Security, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues— including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 5) We are also making the following recommendation to State: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Social Security, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 6) We are also making the following recommendation to SSA: The Commissioner of Social Security, in coordination with the Secretaries of State and Treasury, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements  (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Acting Commissioner of Social Security  IRS provided written comments that are summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI  IRS did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our four recommendations but otherwise provided responses  Regarding our recommendation to develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete TINs of U S  account holders collected from FFIs (recommendation 1), IRS reiterated that it provided a transition period, through the end of 2019, for compliance with the TIN requirements for FFIs in countries with Model 1 IGAs with the United States  IRS also said that it continued to make progress on improving FATCA filing compliance, citing efforts such as initiating a campaign addressing FFIs that do not meet their compliance responsibilities  While these efforts may help IRS obtain more accurate and complete information from financial accounts, IRS did not specify how it will mitigate the ongoing hurdles it faces in matching accounts reported by FFIs without valid TINs to accounts reported by individual tax filers and ensure compliance  Regarding our recommendation that appropriate business units have access to consistent and complete data collected from Forms 8938 and tax returns filed by individuals (recommendation 2), IRS reiterated that RAAS has been working to obtain read-only access to the IPM database but that limited budgetary resources are delaying implementation  Enabling access to consistent and complete Form 8938 and tax return data would help IRS better target compliance initiatives and leverage limited available enforcement resources  While IRS continues to work on enabling access to IPM, it could still provide clear guidance to its business units for accessing Form 8938 and tax return data in IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse, as we recommended  Regarding our recommendation to employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts (recommendation 3), IRS said the resources that would be required to develop a comprehensive plan would be better spent on enforcement activities  While implementing enforcement activities could increase compliance with FATCA reporting requirements, it risks not maximizing the value of such efforts without a comprehensive plan to manage and address the myriad of challenges discussed in this report  Further, it is our belief that IRS’s failure to execute the FATCA roadmap is not justification for abandoning a strategic approach going forward  Regarding our recommendation to assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take appropriate steps to address the issue (recommendation 4), IRS said it will continue to observe filings of Form 8938 and, to the extent that there are unnecessary filings, assess options to inform account holders to reduce reporting and filing burdens followed by appropriate steps to implement any selected options  Our analysis of available data indicates that many Forms 8938 may have been filed unnecessarily  Implementing our recommendation reduces the risk that taxpayers file—and IRS processes—forms unnecessarily  Treasury provided written comments but did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our recommendation that it lead efforts, in coordination with State and SSA, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements (recommendation 5)  Treasury said it will work collaboratively with State and SSA to answer questions that Americans abroad have regarding their tax obligations and, where appropriate, to direct U S  citizens to resources that will help them understand the procedures applied by SSA to apply for an SSN  However, Treasury said it is not the appropriate agency to lead coordination efforts involving foreign employment issues and issues regarding access to foreign financial services and obtaining SSNs  As we noted above, Treasury is ultimately responsible for effective administration of FATCA  As such, it is in a better position than State or SSA to adjust regulations and guidance implementing FATCA to address burdens FFIs and foreign employers face from FATCA implementation while ensuring tax compliance  Additionally, Treasury has an interest in helping U S  persons receive valid SSNs from SSA in a timely manner to meet their tax obligations  Treasury’s written response is reprinted in appendix VII  State and SSA also provided written comments in which they concurred with our recommendations to establish a formal means to address collaboratively together with Treasury ongoing issues that U S  persons living abroad encounter with FATCA (recommendations 6 and 7)  State and SSA’s written comments are reprinted in appendices VIII and IX, respectively  Treasury, State, and SSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or mctiguej@gao gov  Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on the last page of this report  GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in appendix X  The objectives of this report are to (1) assess the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) efforts to use information collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to improve taxpayer compliance; (2) examine available foreign financial asset reports submitted by U S  persons, including submissions that were below required filing thresholds; (3) examine the extent to which the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) administers overlapping reporting requirements on foreign financial assets; (4) describe similarities and differences between FATCA and Common Reporting Standard (CRS) reporting requirements; and (5) examine the effects of FATCA implementation that are unique to U S  persons living abroad  For our first objective, we reviewed Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reports and collected information from Treasury and IRS to summarize efforts to collect complete and valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) from foreign financial institutions (FFI)  We identified criteria from our prior work identifying key practices for risk management  The key practices are derived from the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development and Office of Management and Budget guidance  We applied these criteria to assess steps IRS has taken to manage risks in not receiving complete and valid TIN information from FFIs  We also applied criteria from our prior work on use of documented frameworks to IRS documentation on FATCA compliance activities to determine the extent to which IRS implemented a comprehensive plan to maximize use of collected data to enforce compliance with FATCA  For our second objective, we identified total maximum account values reported by individual filers of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016  See appendix III for more details on our methodology to evaluate these data  We also summarized the numbers of IRS Forms 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets (Form 8938) filed in tax year 2016, accounting for the data limitations described below  We also identified Forms 8938 filed in tax year 2016—the most recent year for which data were available—with available residency and asset information that reported specified foreign financial assets with aggregate values at or below end-of-year tax thresholds, which vary depending on the location of residence and filing status of such filers  For our third objective, we reviewed IRS and FinCEN documentation, and applied criteria from Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide to identify the extent to which IRS and FinCEN were engaged in overlapping activities, and collecting duplicative information on foreign financial assets held by U S  persons  We assessed the extent to which individual filers who submitted a Form 8938 in 2015 and 2016 also submitted an FBAR for the same year by determining the number and percentage of Forms 8938 with TINs that also match the TIN listed on the corresponding FBAR for the same year  For the three objectives described above, we assessed the reliability of data submitted on Forms 8938 filed by individuals for tax years 2015 and 2016, the most recent data available  These data were extracted from IRS’s Individual Return Transaction File (IRTF) and Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB) through IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW)  We also assessed the reliability of data from FBARs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 by (1) reviewing documentation about the data and the systems that produced them; (2) conducting electronic tests, such as identifying data with significant numbers of missing Form 8938 or FBAR records, or values of foreign financial assets reported outside an expected range; (3) tracing selections or random samples of data to source documents; and (4) interviewing IRS and FinCEN officials knowledgeable about the data  We also reviewed Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored in IRS databases to determine whether IRS management is using quality information collected from Forms 8938 to achieve its objectives, as defined in our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We determined that data extracted from IRTF on characteristics of Form 8938 filers and from FBAR filings was sufficiently reliable for our purposes, subject to caveats identified in this report  However, we determined we could not obtain complete data on foreign financial assets reported on Forms 8938 filed on paper  For our fourth objective, we reviewed model international agreements and other documentation, and interviewed officials from Treasury, IRS, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare and contrast FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  We also used the collected information to identify what changes, if any, the United States and other countries could implement to align FATCA and CRS reporting requirements  For our fifth objective, we collected documentation and conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 21 U S  persons living abroad that were subject to FATCA reporting requirements  We also conducted focus groups and interviews with tax practitioners, banking and CPA organizations, government agencies, advocacy groups representing Americans living abroad, and other organizations from the United States and five other countries (Canada, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)  We selected these countries based on geography, relatively high numbers of U S  expatriates and Form 8938 filers, tax information sharing agreements, and other tax treaties with the United States  The findings from the focus groups and interviews are not generalizable to other U S  persons, tax practitioners or organizations, but were selected to represent the viewpoints of U S  persons, FFIs, and host country tax authorities required to transmit information on foreign accounts and other specified foreign financial assets to IRS  We conducted a thematic analysis of the focus groups and interviews, and reviewed cables from U S  embassies to identify the unique effects of FATCA implementation on U S  persons living abroad  We collected documentation from and interviewed Treasury, IRS, Department of State, and Social Security Administration officials on steps to monitor and mitigate such effects  We also identified criteria from our prior work on key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and mechanisms to facilitate coordination  We applied the criteria to agencies’ collaborative efforts addressing issues U S  persons living abroad faced from FATCA’s implementation, and identified the extent to which agencies established effective collaborative mechanisms to identify, assess, and implement cross-agency solutions to such issues  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to April 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The following IRS databases store data collected from individuals’ electronic and paper filings of Forms 8938 and/or elements of individual parent tax returns—the filer’s address and filing status—used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers: Individual Master File (IMF), which serves as IRS’s system for processing individual taxpayer account data  Using this system, accounts are updated, taxes are assessed, and refunds are generated as required during each tax-filing period  Individual Returns Transaction File (IRTF), which stores edited, transcribed, and error-corrected data from the Form 1040 series and related forms for the current processing year and two prior years  Modernized Tax Return Database (MTRDB), which serves as the official repository of all electronic returns processed through IRS’s Modernized e-File system  Tax return data is stored immediately after returns are processed  International Compliance Management Model (ICMM)-FATCA International Returns (ICMM-FIR), which collects, parses, and stores data from incoming form reports–such as Forms 8938 and 8966–into the FATCA Database (FDB), which serves as the repository where ICMM-FIR stores data and from which downstream applications can pull data  Integrated Production Model (IPM), which is a downstream data repository that houses IMF data, information returns, and other data  According to IRS officials, data from IPM are consolidated and made available to a variety of downstream, security certified, systems for use in conducive analysis, case selection, and report preparation  Additionally, data from these and other IRS databases are copied to IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW) periodically, which captures data from multiple production systems and organizes the data in a way that is conductive to analysis  Table 6 highlights several problems with the consistency and completeness of Form 8938 and relevant parent tax return data stored across the listed databases  Inconsistent and incomplete data on address and filing status of Form 8938 filers: As noted above, elements of parent tax returns— specifically the filer’s country of residence and filing status—are used to determine specified reporting thresholds for Form 8938 filers  However, IRTF and MTRDB have inconsistent and incomplete data on addresses linked to Form 8938 filers, and report inconsistent numbers of Forms 8938 filed from a U S  residence  For example, the variable identified as containing data on foreign countries of residence in IRTF shows approximately 8,100 foreign filers in tax years 2015 and 2016, whereas a similar variable in MTRDB shows approximately 89,000 foreign filers for those same years  Additionally, FDB does not contain country codes from paper filings of Form 8938  ICCM-FIR stores information from some elements from parent tax returns—such as TINs and document locator numbers  According to IRS officials, however, ICMM-FIR lacks data on country codes and filing status of Form 8938 filers  IRS officials said that ICMM-FIR was not designed or intended to store data on Form 8938 filers; rather, it was designed to be a database for use in comparing Form 8938 and 8966 data  In general, IRS officials indicated that they would like to adjust the way ICMM-FIR stores data, but that would require modifying the way the database was established  Incomplete data on assets reported on Forms 8938: MTRDB contains detailed information on specified foreign financial assets submitted on electronic filings of Form 8938 and the country code from which the Form 8938 was filed  IRS officials said it is not designed to store information submitted on paper filings of Forms 8938 and parent tax returns  IRS officials said that while IMF processes information transcribed from individual income tax returns, there is no requirement to cross-reference information from the tax return with information submitted with an accompanying Form 8938  Additionally, while IRS officials told us that IRTF is the authoritative source for filers of Form 8938, it does not store account and other asset information submitted from Forms 8938  When asked whether there is any move to store account and other asset information collected from Forms 8938 into IRTF, IRS officials said that the decision on what returns or portions of returns are transcribed are subject to resource constraints and are prioritized from year to year  Table 7 shows that more than 900,000 individuals filed Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114s (commonly known as the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR) in calendar years 2015 and 2016, and declared total maximum values of accounts ranging from about $1 5 trillion to more than $2 trillion each year  We are providing a range of estimates because we found a large number of filings made potentially in error  In some cases, for instance, FBAR filers reported more than $100 trillion in foreign financial accounts  We assume many of these filings are likely made in error, but have only limited means to determine which filings have errors, and which filings have accurate information  Because we cannot independently verify the accuracy of all self-reported FBAR data, we decided to present a range of data with (1) a lower bound discarding all FBAR filings reporting total values of reported foreign financial accounts at or above $1 billion; and (2) an upper bound discarding all filings reporting total values of such accounts at or above $5 billion  Table 2 excludes amended and duplicated FBAR filings  This table also excludes FBAR filings that reported a financial interest in 25 or more financial accounts, but reported total maximum account values of $0 from parts II and III of the FBAR  Although we identified problems with the data, we determined they were reliable enough to provide an estimated range of asset values to report the scale of foreign financial accounts held by U S  persons  Table 8 shows a detailed breakdown of 2015 and 2016 FBAR filings by residence and categories of total maximum account values reported on the FBARs  Appendix IV: Detailed Comparison of Individual Foreign Financial Asset Reporting Requirements 26 U S C  § 6038D; 26 C F R  §§ 1 6038D-1 to 1 6038D-8  26 C F R  § 1 6038D-2  Filers in this category include those who identify as single, married filing separately, “head of household,” or “qualifying widow(er) ” Includes maximum value of specified foreign financial assets (Form 8938) or maximum value of financial accounts maintained by a financial institution physically located in a foreign country (FBAR)  Under FATCA, any income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, gross proceeds, or distributions from holding or disposing of the account are or would be required to be reported, included, or otherwise reflected on a person’s income tax return  Under FBAR reporting requirements, a person has signature or other authority if he or she has the authority (alone or in conjunction with another) to control the disposition of money, funds or other assets held in a financial account by direct communication (whether in writing or otherwise) to the person with whom the financial account is maintained  The account itself is subject to reporting, but the contents of the account do not have to be separately reported  In addition to the contact named above, Brian James (Assistant Director), Mark Ryan (Analyst-in-Charge), Ariana Graham, George Guttman, Krista Loose, Daniel Mahoney, Cynthia Saunders, A J  Stephens, and Elwood White made key contributions to this report  Michael John Bechetti, Ted Burik, and Jacqueline Chapin also provided assistance 
Report 2:  114-92)—remained consistent with excess capacity reports submitted prior to the 1998 and 2005 BRAC rounds round  The Department stated its purpose for obtaining "a sense of excess and whether excess remains after various changes, such as (prior) BRAC or force structure reductions " A final infrastructure capacity report, submitted to Congress in October 2017, modified the original excess capacity estimate to 19%  The Department concluded its infrastructure capacity analysis by arguing it had established sufficient justification for a new BRAC round, a process that would allow it to more effectively dispose of excess infrastructure and manage remaining real property assets  The Department believes we have addressed all congressional concerns     The time to authorize another BRAC round is now  The BRAC process requires considerable time to analyze and develop recommendations, have those recommendations reviewed by the independent BRAC Commission, and then implemented over a six-year period of time  The longer authorization is delayed, the longer the Department will be forced to expend valuable resources on unnecessary facilities instead of weapons systems, readiness, and other national security priorities  Critics of the Department's methodology for estimating excess infrastructure have asserted it includes unreasonable research assumptions and metrics, undermining the basis for DOD's conclusion  For example, observers have cited the report's reliance on Cold War baseline values to establish excess capacity, inconsistent application of existing metrics for measuring capacity shortfalls, and overly broad categorization schemes  Some observers have also cited longstanding data management challenges that continue to affect the Department's ability to measure current excess facility inventory and utilization rates  Others have noted the dearth of data that support DOD claims related to BRAC effectiveness and the disposal of excess property  During a news briefing on the FY2019 defense budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L  Norquist noted that the Department had declined to propose a BRAC round that year, stating that it would work instead to focus on internal reforms while preparing for a financial audit  And so, I think we're looking at doing two things, going forward  One is, working with Congress to find common areas where we can make reforms and changes that don't create the same types of obstacles  The other is that we are undergoing a financial-statement audit that includes a look at property, and assets and investments and improving the accuracy of the data behind it  And as a view of being able to take advantage of the data coming out of that process, to help us make better decision-making on real property  But, yes, you are correct, there is not (a) request for another BRAC round in this budget  In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, Lucian Niemeyer, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, indicated DOD would be working in FY2019 to improve its excess infrastructure accounting processes and demolish unneeded infrastructure: In lieu of another request for legislation in FY 2019 to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to include facility usage optimization review to ensure we have a better accounting of excess infrastructure  We also have proposed for FY 2019 increased efforts to demolish unneeded or obsolete facilities over the course of this year  The 2005 BRAC round was unique among all previous rounds due to its relative size, scope and complexity  (See Figure 2 for comparison of major and minor BRAC actions between rounds ) Colloquially called "the mother of all BRACs," the objectives of the 2005 round were primarily about transforming military infrastructure; however, unanticipated expenses have played a role in shaping subsequent congressional views of the BRAC process and, according to many observers, dampened support for consideration of a new round  Savings estimates submitted during the 2005 round were overvalued by as much as 67%, according to GAO analysis, with one-time implementation costs rising from $21 to $35 1 billion  GAO found that the $14 1 billion increase was due primarily to the rising cost of new construction associated with subsidiary projects not included in the original BRAC implementation plan  Referring to the implementation of the 2005 round, Assistant Secretary Niemeyer, noted, "BRAC legislation effectively limited the ability of Congress to oversee BRAC implementation costs and the Department made deliberate decisions to use BRAC implementation as a recapitalization tool, expanding facility requirements and associated costs " To address congressional concerns about spiraling costs in new BRAC rounds, DOD has periodically proposed legislative language that would constrain the Secretary's ability to recommend BRAC actions that would not yield savings within 20 years and to emphasize recommendations that would yield net savings within five years  Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, part of the Military Construction Defense-Wide appropriation  With no BRAC round authorized or underway, the primary purpose of continuing BRAC appropriations is to fund the environmental cleanup and caretaker functions at bases that were closed under prior rounds (see Figure 3 )  In FY2020, the Trump Administration has requested $278 5 million for BRAC continuing environmental and caretaker costs, with $158 3 million provided for the Navy (57%), $66 1 million for the Army (24%), and $54 million for the Air Force (19%)  The total request represents a $63 million decrease (19%) from FY2019 enacted levels ($342 million)  In FY2018, Congress urged DOD to accelerate environmental remediation at BRAC sites  In report language, appropriators stated that additional funds were provided to speed environmental remediation at installations closed under previous rounds  Accelerated cleanup —The agreement includes additional funding to accelerate environmental remediation at installations closed during previous Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds  Priority should be given to those sites with newly identified radiological cleanup cost  There are many factors hindering the cleanup of BRAC sites  However, strategic investments can lead to quicker clean-ups and faster turnover of DOD property to the local community  Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the congressional defense committees a spend plan for the additional BRAC funds not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act  Congressional authorizers and appropriators have regularly inserted language into annual defense legislation that would disallow the use of funds for the purpose of a new BRAC round  In FY2019, for example, though DOD did not propose a BRAC, authorizers inserted language into the annual NDAA that prohibited a new round: SEC  2703  Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round  A similar provision was included in the final FY2019 defense appropriations bill: SEC  8122  None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new or additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round  In 2017, Members in both chambers proposed legislation that would have authorized a new round of base closures  Though no legislation for a full BRAC was enacted, a provision included the following year in the final FY2019 NDAA  Under the new scenario described by Section 2702 of the John S  McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( H R  5515 , P L  115-232 ), BRAC-like actions are authorized within the confines of a state based on the recommendation of the governor and support of local communities affected by the proposed actions  Unlike a traditional BRAC process, the new authorities would forgo the creation of an independent review panel  The Secretary of Defense is, instead, required to deliver a report of planned BRAC actions to congressional defense committees and, following a 90-day waiting period, begin implementation  For details, please refer to "In-State BRAC" in Appendix A of this report  The BRAC related legislative proposals above illustrate the flexibility Congress has for amending or adopting the template of past BRAC processes that DOD has called "the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals (eliminating excess infrastructure) " Congress may consider whether future legislative proposals for base closures and realignments will adopt the lessons learned from previous rounds while retaining the basic framework, or fundamentally alter the process  No BRAC legislation has so far been proposed in the 116 th Congress  Additionally, the Department has asserted that it does not intend to use the new BRAC-like authorities authorized by Section 2702 of the FY2019 NDAA  To date, DOD has received no state requests under this authority  Appendix A  Legislative References BRAC Authorizing Legislation 1988 Round The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October 24, 1988 (P L 100-526) 1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted November 5, 1990 (P L  107-107, Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Title XXIX) 2005 Round National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, ( P L  101-510 ; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 ( P L  101-510 ) 10 U S C  2687, 10 U S C  993 Summary In 1977, Congress enacted 10 U S C  2687, the first statutory restriction on the President's ability to close or realign military installations  Amended over the years, the statute has retained its essential elements, establishing procedures the Secretary of Defense must follow before closing a military installation where a threshold number (currently 300) of civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or realigning an installation that involves a reduction by more than 50% (or 1,000) of civilian workers  A more recent statute, 10 U S C  993, introduced additional reporting requirements that would restrict the Secretary's ability to realign installations if the plan would affect more than 1,000 assigned members of the Armed Forces  In-State BRAC Section 2702 of the John S  McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( H R  5515 , P L  115-232 ) authorizes new in-state BRAC authorities  Text of the provision is included below in its entirety  SEC  2702  ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO REALIGN OR CLOSE CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS  (a) Authorization —Notwithstanding sections 993 or 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation in a State during a fiscal year if— (1) the military installation is the subject of a notice which is described in subsection (b); and (2) the Secretary includes the military installation in the report submitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (c) with respect to the fiscal year  (b) Notice From Governor of State —A notice described in this subsection is a notice received by the Secretary of Defense from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia) in which the Governor recommends that the Secretary carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation located in the State, and which includes each of the following elements: (1) A specific description of the military installation, or a specific description of the relevant real and personal property  (2) Statements of support for the realignment or closure from units of local government in which the installation is located  (3) A detailed plan for the reuse or redevelopment of the real and personal property of the installation, together with a description of the local redevelopment authority which will be responsible for the implementation of the plan  (c) Response to Notice — (1) Mandatory response to governor and congress —Not later than 1 year after receiving a notice from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, from the Mayor of the District of Columbia), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a response to the notice to the Governor and the congressional defense committees indicating whether or not the Secretary accepts the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of the notice  (2) Acceptance of recommendation —If the Secretary of Defense determines that it is in the interests of the United States to accept the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of a notice received under subsection (b) and intends to carry out the realignment or closure of the installation pursuant to the authority of this section during a fiscal year, at the time the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees which includes the following: (A) The identification of each military installation for which the Secretary intends to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to the authority of this section during the fiscal year, together with the reasons the Secretary of Defense believes that it is in the interest of the United States to accept the recommendation of the Governor of the State involved for the realignment or closure of the installation  (B) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a master plan describing the required scope of work, cost, and timing for all facility actions needed to carry out the realignment or closure, including the construction of new facilities and the repair or renovation of existing facilities  (C) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a certification that, not later than the end of the fifth fiscal year after the completion of the realignment or closure, the savings resulting from the realignment or closure will exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure, together with an estimate of the annual recurring savings that would be achieved by the realignment or closure of the installation and the timeframe required for the financial savings to exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure  (d) Limitations — (1) Timing —The Secretary may not initiate the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section until the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date the Secretary submits the report under paragraph (2) of subsection (c)  (2) Total costs —Subject to appropriations, the aggregate cost to the government in carrying out the realignment or closure of military installations pursuant to the authority of this section for all fiscal years may not exceed $2,000,000,000  In determining the cost to the government for purposes of this section, there shall be included the costs of planning and design, military construction, operations and maintenance, environmental restoration, information technology, termination of public-private contracts, guarantees, and other factors contributing to the cost of carrying out the realignment or closure, as determined by the Secretary  (e) Process for Implementation —The implementation of the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section shall be carried out in accordance with section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (title XXIX of P L  101-510 ; 10 U S C  2687 note) in the same manner as the implementation of a realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of such Act  (f) State Defined —In this section, the term ``State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands  (g) Termination of Authority —The authority of the Secretary to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to this section shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2029  Appendix B  BRAC Acreage Disposal Status, By State

ground_truth: Concerns over efforts by U.S. taxpayers to use offshore accounts to hide income or evade taxes contributed to the passage of FATCA in 2010, which sought to create greater transparency and accountability over offshore assets held by U.S. taxpayers. House Report 114-624 included a provision for GAO to evaluate FATCA implementation and determine the effects of FATCA on U.S. citizens living abroad. GAO—among other things—(1) assessed IRS's efforts to use FATCA-related information to improve taxpayer compliance; (2) examined the extent to which Treasury administers overlapping reporting requirements on financial assets held overseas; and (3) examined the effects of FATCA implementation unique to U.S. persons living abroad. GAO reviewed applicable documentation; analyzed tax data; and interviewed officials from IRS, other federal agencies and organizations, selected tax practitioners, and more than 20 U.S. persons living overseas. Data quality and management issues have limited the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) efforts to improve taxpayer compliance using foreign financial asset data collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Specifically, IRS has had difficulties matching the information reported by foreign financial institutions (FFI) with U.S. taxpayers' tax filings due to missing or inaccurate Taxpayer Identification Numbers provided by FFIs. Further, IRS lacks access to consistent and complete data on foreign financial assets and other data reported in tax filings by U.S. persons, in part, because some IRS databases do not store foreign asset data reported from paper filings. IRS has also stopped pursuing a comprehensive plan to leverage FATCA data to improve taxpayer compliance because, according to IRS officials, IRS moved away from updating broad strategy documents to focus on individual compliance campaigns. Ensuring access to consistent and complete data collected from U.S. persons—and employing a plan to leverage such data—would help IRS better leverage such campaigns and increase taxpayer compliance. Due to overlapping statutory reporting requirements, IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)—both within the Department of the Treasury (Treasury)—collect duplicative foreign financial account and other asset information from U.S. persons. Consequently, in tax years 2015 and 2016, close to 75 percent of U.S. persons who reported information on foreign accounts and other assets on their tax returns also filed a separate form with FinCEN. The overlapping requirements increase the compliance burden on U.S. persons and add complexity that can create confusion, potentially resulting in inaccurate or unnecessary reporting. Modifying the statutes governing the requirements to allow for the sharing of FATCA information for the prevention and detection of financial crimes would eliminate the need for duplicative reporting. This is similar to other statutory allowances for IRS to disclose return information for other purposes, such as for determining Social Security income tax withholding. According to documents GAO reviewed, and focus groups and interviews GAO conducted, FFIs closed some U.S. persons' existing accounts or denied them opportunities to open new accounts after FATCA was enacted due to increased costs, and risks they pose under FATCA reporting requirements. According to Department of State (State) data, annual approvals of renunciations of U.S. citizenship increased from 1,601 to 4,449—or nearly 178 percent—from 2011 through 2016, attributable in part to the difficulties cited above. Treasury previously established joint strategies with State to address challenges U.S. persons faced in accessing foreign financial services. However, it lacks a collaborative mechanism to coordinate efforts with other agencies to address ongoing challenges in accessing such services or obtaining Social Security Numbers. Implementation of a formal means to collaboratively address burdens faced by Americans abroad from FATCA can help federal agencies develop more effective solutions to mitigate such burdens by monitoring and sharing information on such issues, and jointly developing and implementing steps to address them. GAO is making one matter for congressional consideration to address overlap in foreign asset reporting requirements. GAO is making seven recommendations to IRS and other agencies to enhance IRS's ability to leverage FATCA data to enforce compliance, address unnecessary reporting, and better collaborate to mitigate burdens on U.S. persons living abroad. State and Social Security Administration agreed with GAO's recommendations. Treasury and IRS neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendations.