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



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



Report 2: NASA’s mission is to drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration, and contribute to education, innovation, our country’s economic vitality, and the stewardship of the Earth  To accomplish this mission, NASA establishes programs and projects that rely on complex instruments and spacecraft  NASA’s portfolio of major projects ranges from space satellites equipped with advanced sensors to study the Earth to a telescope intended to explore the universe to spacecraft to transport humans and cargo to and beyond low-Earth orbit  Some of NASA’s projects are expected to incorporate new and sophisticated technologies that must operate in harsh, distant environments  The life cycle for NASA space flight projects consists of two phases— formulation, which takes a project from concept to preliminary design, and implementation, which includes building, launching, and operating the system, among other activities  NASA further divides formulation and implementation into phase A through phase F  Major projects must get approval from senior NASA officials at key decision points before they can enter each new phase  Figure 1 depicts NASA’s life cycle for space flight projects  Formulation culminates in a review at key decision point C, known as project confirmation, where cost and schedule baselines are established and documented in a decision memorandum  To inform those baselines, each project with a life-cycle cost estimated to be greater than $250 million must also develop a joint cost and schedule confidence level (JCL)  The JCL initiative, adopted in January 2009, is a point-in-time estimate that, among other things, includes all cost and schedule elements, incorporates and quantifies known risks, assesses the impacts of cost and schedule to date, and addresses available annual resources  NASA policy requires that projects be baselined and budgeted at the 70 percent confidence level  The agency baseline commitment established at key decision point C includes cost and schedule reserves held at the project—those within the project manager’s control—and NASA headquarters level  Cost reserves are for costs that are expected to be incurred—for instance, to address project risks—but are not yet allocated to a specific part of the project  Schedule reserves are extra time in project schedules that can be allocated to specific activities, elements, and major subsystems to mitigate delays or address unforeseen risks  NASA’s current portfolio of major space telescopes includes three projects—WFIRST, TESS, and JWST—that vary in cost, complexity, and phase of the acquisition life cycle  WFIRST, a project that entered the concept and technology development phase and established preliminary cost and schedule estimates in February 2016, is in the earliest stages of the acquisition life cycle  With preliminary cost estimates ranging from $3 2 billion to $3 8 billion, this project is an observatory designed to perform wide-field imaging and survey of the sky at near-infrared wavelengths to answer questions about the structure and evolution of the universe and to expand our knowledge of planets beyond our solar system  The current design includes a 2 4 meter telescope that was built and qualified for another federal agency over 10 years ago; the project is evaluating which components to reuse and which to modify, refurbish, or build new  TESS—a smaller project whose latest cost estimate is approximately $337 million—is targeted to launch in March 2018 and will be used to conduct the first extensive survey of the sky from space for transiting exoplanets  And finally, JWST, with a life-cycle cost estimate of $8 835 billion, is one of NASA’s most complex projects and top priorities  The telescope is designed to help understand the origin and destiny of the universe, the creation and evolution of the first stars and galaxies, and the formation of stars and planetary systems  With a 6 5-meter primary mirror, JWST is expected to operate at about 100 times the sensitivity of the Hubble Space Telescope  JWST’s science instruments are to detect very faint infrared sources and, as such, are required to operate at extremely cold temperatures  To help keep these instruments cold, a multi-layered tennis-court-sized sunshield is being developed to protect the mirrors and instruments from the sun’s heat  We have reported for several years on the JWST project, which has experienced significant cost increases and schedule delays  Prior to being approved for development, cost estimates for JWST ranged from $1 billion to $3 5 billion, with expected launch dates ranging from 2007 to 2011  Before 2011, early technical and management challenges, contractor performance issues, low levels of cost reserves, and poorly phased funding levels caused JWST to delay work after confirmation, which contributed to significant cost and schedule overruns, including launch delays  The Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies requested from NASA an independent review of JWST in June 2010  In response, NASA commissioned the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, which issued its report in October 2010  The panel concluded that JWST was executing well from a technical standpoint, but that the baseline cost estimate did not reflect the most probable cost with adequate reserves in each year of project execution, resulting in an unexecutable project  Following this review, Congress in November 2011 placed an $8 billion cap on the formulation and development costs for the project and NASA rebaselined JWST with a life-cycle cost estimate of $8 835 billion that included additional money for operations and a planned launch in October 2018  The new baseline represented a 78 percent increase to the project’s life-cycle cost from the original baseline and a launch date in October 2018, a delay of 52 months  The revised life-cycle cost estimate included a total of 13 months of funded schedule reserve  Our ongoing work indicates that these three projects are each making progress in line with their phase of the acquisition cycle, but also face challenges in execution  Some of these challenges are unique to the projects themselves and some are common among the projects in NASA’s portfolio  For example, when projects enter the integration and test phase, unforeseen challenges can arise and affect the cost and schedule for the project  Table 1 provides more details about the current acquisition phase, cost, and schedule status of NASA’s major space telescope projects based on our ongoing work  WFIRST  NASA’s preliminary cost and schedule estimates for the WFIRST project are currently under review as the project responds to findings in the WFIRST Independent External Technical/Management/Cost Review  This independent review was conducted to ensure the mission’s scope and required resources are well understood and executable  NASA initiated this review in April 2017 to address the National Academies’ concerns that WFIRST cost growth could endanger the balance of NASA’s astrophysics program and negatively affect other scientific priorities  The review found that the mission scope is understood, but not aligned with the resources provided and concluded that the mission is not executable without adjustments and/or additional resources  For example, the study team found that NASA’s current forecasted funding profile for the WFIRST project would require the project to slow down activities starting in fiscal year 2020, which would result in an increase in development cost and schedule  NASA agreed with the study team’s results and directed the project to reduce the cost and complexity of the design in order to maintain costs within the $3 2 billion cost target  The project is currently identifying potential ways to reduce the scope of planned activities (called “descopes”), assessing the science impact of those descopes, and then developing recommendations for the Astrophysics Division leadership  An example of a descope that may be considered is the requirement for WFIRST to be “star-shade ready,” which means the design must be compatible with a star-shade device that is positioned between it and the star being observed to block out starlight while allowing the light emitted by the planet through  TESS  The TESS project is currently holding cost and schedule reserves consistent with NASA center requirements, but there are no longer headquarters-held cost reserves to cover a delay if the project cannot launch as planned in March 2018  According to a project official, the project is holding 16 days of schedule reserve to its target March 2018 launch readiness date, which includes 6 days for the completion of integration and test, and 10 days for launch operations  The project previously used schedule reserves to accommodate the delayed delivery of its Ka-band transmitter, which is essential for TESS as it transmits the mission data back to Earth, due to continued performance and manufacturing issues  The two main risks to the March 2018 launch date are if: 1) SpaceX requires additional time past December 2017 for NASA’s Launch Services Program to certify that TESS can fly on its upgraded launch vehicle—certification is necessary because it will be the first time that NASA will use this version of the vehicle—and 2) any issues are identified during the remainder of environmental testing  The project is also conducting additional testing on its spare camera at temperatures seen in space to better understand expected camera performance on orbit  TESS will use four identical, wide field-of-view cameras to conduct the first extensive survey of the sky from space for transiting exoplanets  However, during thermal testing, the project found that the substance attaching the lenses to the camera barrel places pressure on the lenses and causes the cameras to be slightly out of focus  In June 2017, NASA directed the project to proceed with integrating the cameras—as they are expected to meet TESS’s top level science requirements even with the anomaly  At its most recent key decision review in August 2017, NASA reallocated $15 million of TESS’s headquarters-held reserves to the WFIRST project  While this had the effect of decreasing life cycle costs for TESS, it also increased risk as the project no longer has any additional headquarters-held cost reserves to cover a launch delay past March 2018  JWST  The JWST project continues to make progress towards launch, but the program is encountering technical challenges that require both time and money to fix and may lead to additional delays, beyond a delay recently announced  While the project has made much progress on hardware integration and testing over the past several months, it also used all of its remaining schedule reserves to address various technical issues, particularly on the spacecraft element  In September 2017, the JWST project requested from the European Space Agency—who will contribute the Ariane V launch vehicle—a launch window from March to June 2019, or 5 to 8 months later than the planned October 2018 launch readiness date, established in 2011  The project based this request on the results of a schedule risk assessment that incorporated inputs from the contractor on expected durations of ongoing spacecraft element integration work and other challenges that were expected to increase schedule  With the later launch window to June 2019, the project expected to have up to 4 months of new schedule reserves  However, shortly after requesting the revised launch window, the project learned from its contractor that up to another 3 months of schedule reserve use is likely, due to lessons learned from conducting deployment exercises of the sunshield, such as reach and access limitations on the flight hardware  As a result, and pending further examination of the schedule, the project now has approximately one month of schedule reserve to complete environmental testing of the spacecraft element and the final integration phase  The final integration phase is where the instruments and telescope will be integrated with the spacecraft and sunshield to form the completed observatory  As I previously noted, our work has shown the integration and test is the riskiest phase of development, where problems are most likely to be found and schedules slip  Given the risks associated with the integration and test work ahead, coupled with a level of schedule reserves that is currently well below the level stated in the procedural requirements issued by the NASA center responsible for managing JWST, additional delays to the project’s revised launch readiness date of June 2019 are likely  As a result, the funding available under the Congressional cost cap of $8 billion may be inadequate as the contractor will need to continue to retain higher workforce levels for longer than expected to prepare the mission for a delayed launch  As Congress, NASA, and the science community consider future telescope efforts, it will be exceedingly important to shape and manage new programs in a manner that minimizes cost overruns and schedule delays  This is particularly important for the largest programs as even small cost increases can have reverberating effects
Report 2:  Large firms may have the resources to hire consultants and lawyers to guide implementation and compliance; it may be harder and costlier for small and mid-sized enterprises to comply, possibly deterring them from entering the EU market and creating a de facto trade barrier  Since the GDPR went into effect on May 25, 2018, some U S  businesses, including some newspaper websites and digital advertising firms, have opted to exit the EU market given the complexities of complying with the GDPR and the threat of potential enforcement actions  European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) have received a range of GDPR complaints and initiated several GDPR enforcement actions in the fall of 2018  In January 2019, the French DPA issued the largest penalty to date for a data privacy breach  The agency imposed a €50 million (approximately $57 million) fine on Google for the "lack of transparency" regarding how the search engine processes user data  Analysts contend that the high fine may set a benchmark and signal for future enforcement, raising concerns among some firms doing business in the EU  Under the GDPR, a few options exist to transfer personal data in or out of the EU and ensure that privacy is maintained  1  An organization may use specific Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) or Model Contracts approved by the EU; 2  An organization may comply with domestic privacy regimes of a country that has obtained a mutual adequacy decision from the EU, which means that the EU has deemed that a country's laws and regulations provide an adequate level of data protection; currently, fewer than 15 jurisdictions are deemed adequate by the EU; or 3  A U S -based organization may enroll in the bilateral U S -EU Privacy Shield program for transatlantic transfer of personal data  The GDPR legal text seems to envision a fourth way, such as a certification scheme to transfer data, that the EU has yet to elaborate  A certification option(s) could create a less burdensome means of compliance for U S  and other non-EU organizations to transfer personal data to or from the EU in the future  This could be an opportunity for the United States to work with the EU on creating a common system, perhaps even setting a global standard  Some experts contend that the GDPR may effectively set new global data privacy standards, since many companies and organizations are striving for GDPR compliance to avoid being shut out of the EU market, fined, or otherwise penalized, or in case other countries introduce rules that imitate the GDPR  The EU is actively promoting the GDPR and some countries, such as Argentina, are imitating all or parts of the GDPR in their own privacy regulatory and legislative efforts or as part of broader trade negotiations with the EU  In general, the EU does not include cross-border data flows or privacy in free trade agreements  However, alongside trade negotiations with Japan, the EU and Japan agreed to recognize each other's data protection systems as "equivalent," allowing for the free flow of data between the EU and Japan and serving as a first step in adopting an adequacy decision  Under the agreement, Japan committed to implementing additional measures to address the handling of the personal data of EU persons on top of Japan's own privacy regime  China's trade and internet policies reflect state direction and industrial policy, limiting the free flow of information and individual privacy  For example, the requirement for all internet traffic to pass through a national firewall can impede the cross-border transmission of data  China's 2015 counterterrorism law requires telecommunications operators and internet service providers to provide assistance to the government, which could include sharing individuals' data  Citing national security concerns, China's Internet Sovereignty policies, Cybersecurity Law, and Personal Information Security Specification impose strict requirements on companies, such as storing data domestically; limiting the ability to access, use, or transfer data internationally; and mandating security assessments that provide Chinese authorities access to proprietary information  In 2014, China announced a new social credit system, a centralized big-data-enabled system for monitoring and shaping businesses' and citizens' behavior that serves as a self-enforcing regulatory mechanism  According to the government, China aims to make individuals more "sincere" and "trustworthy," while obtaining reliable data on the creditworthiness of businesses and individuals  An individual's score would determine the level of government services and opportunities he or she could receive  China seeks to have all its citizens subject to the social credit system by 2020, forcing some U S  businesses who do business in China, such as airlines, to participate  As of 2018, multiple government agencies and financial institutions contribute data to the platform  Pilot projects are underway in some provinces to apply various rewards and punishments in response to data collected  The lack of control an individual may have and the exposure of what some consider private data is controversial among observers in and out of China  Some countries, such as Vietnam, are following China's approach in creating cybersecurity policies that limit data flows and require local data storage and possible access by government authorities  Some U S  firms and other multinational companies are considering exiting the Vietnamese market rather than complying, while some analysts suggest that Vietnam's law may not be in compliance with its recent commitments in trade agreements (see below)  India has also cited security as the rationale for its draft Personal Data Protection Bill, which would establish broad data localization requirements and limit cross-border transfer of some data  Unlike the EU, these countries do not specify mechanisms to allow for cross-border data flows  U S  officials have raised concerns with both Vietnam's and India's localization requirements  The EU's emphasis on privacy protection and China's focus on national security (and the countries that emulate their policies) have led these countries to create data-focused policies that restrict international trade and commerce  The United States has traditionally sought a balanced approach between trade, privacy, and security  U S  data flow policy priorities are articulated in USTR's Digital 2 Dozen report, first developed under the Obama Administration, and the White House's 2017 National Security Strategy  Both Administrations emphasize the need for protection of privacy, the free flow of data across borders, and an interoperable internet  These documents establish the U S  position that the free flow of data is not inconsistent with privacy protection  Recent free trade agreements translate the U S  position into binding international commitments  The United States has taken a data-specific approach to regulating data privacy, with laws protecting specific information, such as healthcare or financial data  The FTC enforces consumer protection laws and requires that consumers be notified of and consent to how their data will be used, but the FTC does not have the mandate or resources to enforce broad online privacy protections  There is growing interest among some Members of Congress and in the Administration for a more holistic U S  data privacy policy  The United States has played an important role in international discussions on privacy and data flows, such as in the OECD, G-20, and APEC, and has included provisions on these subjects in recent free trade agreements  Congress noted the importance of digital trade and the internet as a trading platform in setting the current U S  trade negotiating objectives in the June 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation ( P L  114-26 )  TPA includes a specific principal U S  trade negotiating objective on "digital trade in goods and services and cross-border data flows " According to TPA, a trade agreement should ensure that governments "refrain from implementing trade-related measures that impede digital trade in goods and services, restrict cross-border data flows, or require local storage or processing of data " However, TPA also recognizes that sometimes measures are necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives and aims for such regulations to be the least trade restrictive, nondiscriminatory, and transparent  Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‐Pacific Partnership (CPTPP /TPP-11 )   The CPTPP is a recently concluded trade agreement among 11 Asia-Pacific countries  The CPTPP is based on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration and from which President Trump withdrew the United States in January 2017  The electronic commerce chapter in TPP, left unchanged in CPTPP, contains the strongest binding trade agreement commitments on digital trade in force globally  CPTPP includes provisions on cross-border data flows and personal information protection  The text specifically states that the parties "shall allow the cross-border transfer of information " The agreement allows restrictive measures for legitimate public policy purposes if they are not discriminatory or disguised trade barriers  The agreement also prohibits localization requirements for computing facilities, with similar exceptions  On privacy, the CPTPP requires parties to have a legal framework in place to protect personal information and to have consumer protection laws that cover online commerce  It encourages interoperability between data privacy regimes and encourages cooperation between consumer protection authorities  United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)  The released text for the proposed USMCA aims to revise and update the trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and illustrates the Trump Administration's approach  The USMCA chapter 19 on digital trade includes articles on consumer protection, personal information protection, cross-border transfer of information by electronic means, and cybersecurity, among other topics  Building on the TPP, the agreement seeks to balance the legitimate objectives by requiring parties to have a legal framework to protect personal information, have consumer protection laws for online commercial activities, and not prohibit or restrict cross-border transfer of information  While the agreement does not prescribe specific rules or measures that a party must take to protect privacy, it goes further than the TPP (or CPTPP) provisions and provides guidance to inform a country's privacy regime  In particular, the USMCA explicitly refers to the APEC Privacy Framework and OECD Guidelines as relevant and identifies key principles  In general, the proposed USMCA requires that parties not restrict cross-border data flows  Governments are allowed to do so to achieve a legitimate public policy objective (e g , privacy, national security), provided the measure is not arbitrary, discriminatory, a disguised trade barrier, or greater than necessary to achieve the particular objective  In this way, the parties seek to balance the free flow of data for commerce and communication with protecting privacy and security  The agreement specifically states that the parties may take different legal approaches to protect personal data and also recognizes APEC CBPR as a "valid mechanism to facilitate cross-border information transfer while protecting personal information " The agreement aims to increase cooperation between the United States, Mexico, and Canada on a number of digital trade issues, including exchanging information on personal information protection and enforcement experiences; strengthening collaboration on cybersecurity issues; and promoting the APEC CBPR and global interoperability of national privacy regimes  The governments also commit to encourage private-sector self-regulation models and promote cooperation to enforce privacy laws  While the agreement is only between three parties, the provisions are written broadly to encompass global efforts  Some stakeholders look at USMCA as the basis for potential future trade agreements (such as with the UK)  Cross-border data flows will likely be a key issue in future U S -EU trade negotiations  The United States has articulated a clear position on data privacy in trade agreements; however, there is no single U S  data privacy policy  Nevertheless, the Trump Administration is seeking to define an overarching U S  policy on data privacy  The Trump Administration's ongoing three-track process is being managed by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) in consultation with the White House  Different bureaus in Commerce are tasked with different aspects of the process, as follows  1  The National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) is developing a privacy framework  Similar to its cybersecurity framework, NIST aims to create a voluntary framework as a tool for organizations to adopt to identify, assess, manage, and communicate about privacy risks  By classifying specific privacy outcomes and potential approaches, the framework is intended to enable organizations to create and adapt privacy strategies, innovate, and manage privacy risks within diverse environments  As part of its transparent approach, NIST is currently consulting with public- and private-sector stakeholders through various forms of outreach to collect feedback and aims to have a draft framework before the end of 2019  2  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is developing a set of privacy principles to guide a domestic legal and policy approach  The NITA sought public comment on a proposed set of "user-centric privacy outcomes" and a set of high-level goals  3  The International Trade Administration (ITA) engages with foreign governments and international organizations such as APEC  ITA is focusing on the international interoperability aspects of potential U S  privacy policy  ITA's role is to ensure that the NIST and NTIA approaches are consistent with U S  international policy objectives, including TPA, and principles, such as the OECD framework and APEC CBPRs  Like the EU and China, Commerce is seeking input through a public- and private-sector consultation process  However, unlike the EU or China, Commerce is expecting to create a voluntary privacy framework  Some observers question whether the Commerce approach is sufficient to result in strong privacy protections if it is not backed up by congressional action and federal legislation  Some suggest that Congress could lead a whole-of-government approach through new federal legislation  In the 115 th Congress, then-House Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr  requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine issues related to federal oversight of internet privacy  The January 2019 GAO report concluded that now is "an appropriate time for Congress to consider comprehensive Internet privacy " GAO stated that "Congress should consider developing comprehensive legislation on Internet privacy that would enhance consumer protections and provide flexibility to address a rapidly evolving Internet environment  Issues that should be considered include what authorities agencies should have in order to oversee Internet privacy, including appropriate rulemaking authority " Recognizing the importance of protecting open data flows amid growing concerns about online privacy, some stakeholders seek to influence U S  policies on these issues  In addition to submitting comments in response to NTIA and NIST requests and participating in their forums, multiple organizations issued their own sets of principles or guidelines, some referencing the EU GDPR  The U S  Chamber of Commerce has also published model privacy legislation for Congress to consider  Though they vary in emphasis, these proposals share common themes: transparency on what data is being collected and how it is being used; user control, including the ability to opt out of sharing at least some information and to access and correct personal data collected; data security measures, like data breach notification requirements; and enforcement by the FTC; FTC commissioners also voiced support for the agency as the appropriate federal enforcer for consumer privacy  But these groups also differ in some areas, such as whether, or to what extent, to include certain aspects included in the GDPR, such as the right to deletion (so-called "right to be forgotten"), requirements for data minimization, or extraterritorial reach  There is not consensus on whether the FTC should be given rule-making authority or additional resources, the enforcement role of states, or if an independent data protection commission is needed similar to EU DPAs  Consistent with U S  trade policy, industry groups generally point out the need to be flexible, encourage private-sector innovation, establish sector- and technology-neutral rules, create international interoperability between privacy regimes, and facilitate cross-border data flows  Private-sector stakeholders generally want to avoid what they regard as overregulation or high compliance burdens  These groups emphasize risk management and a harm-based approach, which they state keeps an organization's costs proportional to the consumer harm prevented  On the other hand, some consumer advocates point to a need for baseline obligations to protect against discrimination, disinformation, or other harm  In general, consumer advocates believe that any comprehensive federal privacy policy should complement, and not supplant, sector-specific privacy legislation or state-level legislation  Finding a global consensus on how to balance open data flows and privacy protection may be key to maintaining trust in the digital environment and advancing international trade  One study found that over 120 countries have laws related to personal data protection  Divergent national privacy approaches raise the costs of doing business and make it harder for governments to collaborate and share data, whether for scientific research, defense, or law enforcement  A system for global interoperability in a least trade-restrictive and nondiscriminatory way between different national systems could help minimize costs and allow entities in different jurisdictions with varying online privacy regimes to share data via cross-border data flows  Such a system could help avoid fragmentation of the internet between European, Chinese, and American spheres, a danger that some analysts have warned against  For example, Figure 2 suggests the potential of an interoperability system that allows data to flow freely between GDPR- and CBPR-certified economies  The OECD guidelines, G-20 principles, APEC CBPR, CPTPP, and USMCA provisions demonstrate an evolving understanding on how to balance cross-border data flows, security, and privacy, to create interoperable policies that can be tailored by countries and avoid fragmentation or the potential exclusion of other countries or regulatory systems  The various trade agreements and initiatives with differing sets of parties may ultimately pave the way for a broader multilateral understanding and eventually lead to more enforceable binding commitments founded on the key WTO principles of nondiscrimination, least trade restrictiveness, and transparency  Congress may consider the trade-related aspects of data flows in trade agreements, including through close examination of these provisions during the congressional debate and consideration of legislation to implement the proposed USMCA  Issues include whether the agreements make progress in meeting TPA's related trade negotiating objectives and if the provisions strike the appropriate balance among public policy objectives  In addition, USTR's specific trade negotiating objectives for future agreements with the EU and Japan include establishing rules to protect cross-border data flows  These future trade negotiations present challenges and provide opportunities for Congress to further engage USTR on the issues and to conduct oversight  Congress may further consider how best to achieve broader consensus on data flows and privacy at the global level  Congress could, for example, conduct additional oversight of current best practice approaches (e g , OECD, APEC) or ongoing negotiations in the WTO on e-commerce to create rules through plurilateral or multilateral agreements  Congress may consider endorsing certain of these efforts to influence international discussions and the engagement of other countries  Congress may want to examine the potential challenges and implications of building a system of interoperability between APEC, CBPR, and the EU GDPR  Related issues are the extent to which the EU is establishing its system as a potential de facto global approach through its trade agreements and other mechanisms, and how U S  and other trade agreements may ultimately provide approaches that could be adopted more globally  Congress may seek to better understand the economic impact of data flows and privacy regimes in other countries related to U S  access to other markets and the extent to which barriers are being put in place that may discriminate against U S  exporters  Congress may examine the lack of reciprocal treatment and limits on U S  firms' access to some foreign markets  Congress may consider the implications of not having a comprehensive national data privacy policy  Will the EU GDPR and China cybersecurity policies become the global norms that other countries follow in the absence of a clear U S  alternative? Congress may enact comprehensive privacy legislation  In considering such action, Congress could investigate and conduct oversight of the Administration's ongoing privacy efforts, including requesting briefings and updates on the NTIA, NIST, and ITA initiatives to provide congressional feedback and direction and ensure they are aligned with U S  trade objectives  Congress may also seek input from other federal agencies  In deliberating a comprehensive U S  policy on personal data privacy, Congress may review the GAO report's findings and conclusions  Congress may also weigh several factors, including: How can U S  trade and domestic policy achieve the appropriate balance to encourage cross-border commerce, economic growth, and innovation, while safeguarding individual privacy and national security? How would a new privacy regime affect U S  consumers and businesses, including large multinationals who must comply with different national privacy regimes and small- and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources and technology expertise? Do U S  agencies have the needed tools to accurately assess the size and scope of cross-border data flows to help analyze the economic impact of different privacy policies, or measure the costs of trade barriers? How should an evolving U S  privacy regime align with U S  trade policy objectives and evolving international standards, such as the OECD Guidelines for privacy and cybersecurity, and should U S  policymakers prioritize interoperability with other international privacy frameworks to avoid further fragmentation of global markets and so-called balkanization of the internet? In addition, there are a host of other policy considerations not directly related to trade 

ground_truth: The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools. Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies). Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households. Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals. Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines). Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.

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



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

Report 1: The federal child nutrition programs provide assistance to schools and other institutions in the form of cash, commodity food, and administrative support (such as technical assistance and administrative funding) based on the provision of meals and snacks to children  In general, these programs were created (and amended over time) to both improve children's nutrition and provide support to the agriculture economy  Today, the child nutrition programs refer primarily to the following meal, snack, and milk reimbursement programs (these and other acronyms are listed in Appendix A ): National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U S C  1751 et seq )); School Breakfast Program (SBP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U S C  1773)); Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 17 (42 U S C  1766)); Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U S C  1761)); and Special Milk Program (SMP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U S C  1772))  The programs provide financial support and/or foods to the institutions that prepare meals and snacks served outside of the home (unlike other food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) where benefits are used to purchase food for home consumption)  Though exact eligibility rules and pricing vary by program, in general the amount of federal reimbursement is greater for meals served to qualifying low-income individuals or at qualifying institutions, although most programs provide some subsidy for all food served  Participating children receive subsidized meals and snacks, which may be free or at reduced price  Forthcoming sections discuss how program-specific eligibility rules and funding operate  This report describes how each program operates under current law, focusing on eligibility rules, participation, and funding  This introductory section describes some of the background and principles that generally apply to all of the programs; subsequent sections go into further detail on the workings of each  Unless stated otherwise, participation and funding data come from USDA-FNS's "Keydata Reports " The child nutrition programs are most often dated back to the 1946 enactment of the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program, albeit in a different form than it operates today  Most of the child nutrition programs do not date back to 1946; they were added and amended in the decades to follow as policymakers expanded child nutrition programs' institutional settings and meals provided: The Special Milk Program was created in 1954, regularly extended, and made permanent in 1970  The School Breakfast Program was piloted in 1966, regularly extended, and eventually made permanent in 1975  A program for child care settings and summer programs was piloted in 1968, with separate programs authorized in 1975 and then made permanent in 1978  These are now the Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service Program  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program began as a pilot in 2002, was made permanent in 2004, and was expanded nationwide in 2008  The programs are now authorized under three major federal statutes: the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U S C  612c)  Congressional jurisdiction over the underlying three laws has typically been exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and, to a limited extent (relating to commodity food assistance and Section 32 issues), the House Agriculture Committee  Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws  The child nutrition programs were most recently reauthorized in 2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P L  111-296 ); some of the authorities created or extended in that law expired on September 30, 2015  WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is also typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs  WIC is not one of the child nutrition programs and is not discussed in this report  The 114 th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization (see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview )  There was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115 th Congress  The U S  Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) administers the programs at the federal level  The programs are operated by a wide variety of local public and private providers and the degree of direct state involvement differs by program and state  At the state level, education, health, social services, and agriculture departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and overseeing local providers such as schools, summer program sponsors, and child care centers and day care homes, as well as making sure they receive the federal support they are due  At the local level, program benefits are provided to millions of children (e g , there were 30 0 million in the National School Lunch Program, the largest of the programs, in FY2017), through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care institutions, nearly 170,000 child care centers and family day care homes, and just over 50,000 summer program sites  All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia  Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (and, in differing versions, in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa)  This section summarizes the nature and extent to which the programs' funding is mandatory and discretionary, including a discussion of appropriated entitlement status  Table 3 lists child nutrition program and related expenditures  Most spending for child nutrition programs is provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws  That is, the level of spending for such programs, referred to as appropriated mandatory spending, is not controlled through the annual appropriations process, but instead is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws  The appropriated mandatory funding is treated as mandatory spending  Further, if Congress does not appropriate the funds necessary to fund the program, eligible entities may have legal recourse  Congress typically considers the Administration's forecast for program needs in its appropriations decisions  For the majority of funding discussed in this report, the formula that controls the funding is not capped and fluctuates based on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served in the programs  In the meal service programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and day care homes, federal aid is provided in the form of statutorily set subsidies (reimbursements) paid for each meal/snack served that meets federal nutrition guidelines  Although all (including full-price) meals/snacks served by participating providers are subsidized, those served free or at a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates  All federal meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually (each July) for inflation, as are the income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price meals/snacks  Subsequent sections discuss how a specific program's eligibility and reimbursements work  Most subsidies are cash payments to schools or other providers, but a smaller portion of aid is provided in the form of USDA-purchased commodity foods   Laws for three child nutrition programs (NSLP, CACFP, and SFSP) require the provision of commodity foods (or in some cases allow cash in lieu of commodity foods)  Meal and snack service entails nonfood costs  Federal child nutrition per-meal/snack subsidies may be used to cover local providers' administrative and operating costs  However, the separate direct federal payments for administrative/operating costs ("State Administrative Expenses," discussed in the " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities " section) are limited  In addition to the open-ended, appropriated entitlement funds summarized above, the child nutrition programs' funding also includes certain other mandatory funding and a limited amount of discretionary funding  Some of the activities discussed in " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities ," such as Team Nutrition, are provided for with discretionary funding  Aside from the annually appropriated funding, the child nutrition programs are also supported by certain permanent appropriations and transfers  Notably, funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is funded by a transfer from USDA's Section 32 program, a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  Federal subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by providers  States and localities help cover program costs, as do children's families by paying charges for nonfree or reduced-price meals/snacks  There is a nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for the school meals programs (discussed below), and some states supplement school funding through additional state per-meal reimbursements or other prescribed financing arrangements  Subsequent sections of this report delve into the details of how each of the child nutrition programs support the service of meals and snacks in institutional settings; first, it is useful to take a broader perspective of primary program elements  Table 1 is a top-level look at the different programs that displays distinguishing characteristics (what meals are provided, in what settings, to what ages) and recent program spending  Other relevant CRS reports in this area include CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P L  111-296 (summarizes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program Other relevant resources include USDA-FNS's website, https://www fns usda gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs USDA-FNS's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act page, http://www fns usda gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act The FNS page of the Federal Register , https://www federalregister gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service This section discusses the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)  Principles and concepts common to both programs are discussed first; subsections then discuss features and data unique to the NSLP and SBP, respectively  The federal school meals programs provide federal support in the form of cash assistance and USDA commodity foods; both are provided according to statutory formulas based on the number of reimbursable meals served in schools  The subsidized meals are served by both public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) that opt to enroll and guarantee to offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible low-income children  Both cash and commodity support to participating schools are calculated based on the number and price of meals served (e g , lunch or breakfast, free or full price), but once the aid is received by the school it is used to support the overall school meal service budget, as determined by the school  This report focuses on the federal reimbursements and funding, but it should be noted that some states have provided state financing through additional state-specific funding  Federal law does not require schools to participate in the school meals programs  However, some states have mandated that schools provide lunch and/or breakfast, and some of these states require that their schools do so through NSLP and/or SBP  The program is open to public and private schools  A reimbursable meal requires compliance with federal school nutrition standards, which have changed throughout the history of the program based on nutritional science and children's nutritional needs  Food items not served as a complete meal meeting nutrition standards (e g , a la carte offerings) are not reimbursable meals, and therefore are not eligible for federal per-meal, per-snack reimbursements  Following rulemaking to implement provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P L  111-296 ), USDA updated the nutrition standards for reimbursable meals in January 2012 (see " Nutrition Standards " for more information)  Schools serving meals that meet the updated nutrition standards are eligible for an increased reimbursement of 6 cents per lunch  USDA-FNS administers the school meals programs federally, and state agencies (typically state departments of education) oversee and transmit reimbursements through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs) (typically local educational agencies (LEAs); usually these are school districts)  Figure 1 provides an overview of the roles and relationships between these levels of government  There is a cost-sharing requirement for the programs, which amounts to a contribution of approximately $200 million from the states  There also are states that choose to supplement federal reimbursements with their own state reimbursements  The school meals programs and related funding do not serve only low-income children  All students can receive a meal at a NSLP- or SBP-participating school, but how much the child pays for the meal and/or how much of a federal reimbursement the state receives will depend largely on whether the child qualifies for a "free," "reduced-price," or "paid" (i e , advertised price) meal  Both NSLP and SBP use the same household income eligibility criteria and categorical eligibility rules  States and schools receive the largest reimbursements for free meals, smaller reimbursements for reduced-price meals, and the smallest (but still some federal financial support) for the full-price meals  There are three pathways through which a child can become certified to receive a free or reduced-price meal: 1  Household income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (information typically collected via household application), 2  Categorical (or automatic) eligibility for free meals (information collected via household application or a direct certification process), and 3  School-wide free meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) , an option for eligible schools that is based on the share of students identified as eligible for free meals  Each of these pathways is discussed in more detail below  The income eligibility thresholds (shown in Table 2 ) are based on multipliers of the federal poverty guidelines  As the poverty guidelines are updated every year, so are the eligibility thresholds for NSLP and SBP  Free Meals: Children receive free meals if they have household income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive the highest subsidy rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $3 30 per lunch served, less for breakfast ) Reduced-Price Meals: Children may receive reduced-price meals (charges of no more than 40 cents for a lunch or 30 cents for a breakfast) if their household income is above 130% and less than or equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive a subsidy rate that is 40 cents (NSLP) or 30 cents (SBP) below the free meal rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $2 90 per lunch served ) Paid Meals: A comparatively small per-meal reimbursement is provided for full-price or paid meals served to children whose families do not apply for assistance or whose family income does not qualify them for free or reduced-price meals  The paid meal price is set by the school but must comply with federal regulations  (Reimbursements are approximately 30 cents per lunch served ) The above reimbursement rates are approximate; exact current-year federal reimbursement rates for NSLP and SBP are listed in Table B -1 and Table B -3 , respectively  Households complete paper or online applications that collect relevant income and household size data, so that the school district can determine if children in the household are eligible for free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither  Though these income guidelines primarily influence funding and administration of NSLP and SBP, they also affect the eligibility rules for the SFSP, CACFP, and SMP (described further in subsequent sections)  In addition to the eligibility thresholds listed above, the school meals programs also convey eligibility for free meals based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children's specified vulnerabilities (e g , foster children)  Per Section 12 of the National School Lunch Act, "a child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast     without further application or eligibility determination, if the child is" in a household receiving benefits through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, a program that operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations) benefits; or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance; enrolled in Head Start; in foster care; a migrant; a runaway; or homeless  For meals served to students certified in the above categories, the state/school receive a reimbursement at the free meal amount and children receive a free meal  (See Table B -1 and Table B -3 for school year 2018-2019 rates ) Some school districts collect information for these categorical eligibility rules via paper application  Others conduct a process called direct certification —a proactive process where government agencies typically cross-check their program rolls and certify a household's children for free school meals without the household having to complete a school meals application  Prior to 2004, states had the option to conduct direct certification of SNAP (then, the Food Stamp Program), TANF, and FDPIR participants  In the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization ( P L  108-265 ), states were required under federal law to conduct direct certification for SNAP participants, with nationwide implementation taking effect in school year 2008-2009  Conducting direct certification for TANF and FDPIR remains at the state's discretion  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) made further policy changes to expand direct certification (discussed further in the next section)  One of those changes was the initiation of a demonstration project to look at expanding categorical eligibility and direct certification to some Medicaid households  The law also funded performance incentive grants for high-performing states and authorized correcting action planning for low-performing states in direct certification activities  Under SNAP direct certification rules generally, schools enter into agreements with SNAP agencies to certify children in SNAP households as eligible for free school meals without requiring a separate application from the family  Direct certification systems match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records, eliminating the need for action by the child's parents or guardians  Direct certification allows schools to make use of SNAP's more in-depth eligibility certification process; this can reduce errors that may occur in school lunch application eligibility procedures that are otherwise used  From a program access perspective, direct certification also reduces the number of applications a household must complete  Figure 2 , created by GAO and published in a May 2014 report, provides an overview of how school districts certify students for free and reduced-price meals under the income-based and category-based rules, via applications and direct certification  A USDA-FNS study of school year 2014-2015 estimates that 11 1 million students receiving free meals were directly certified—68% of all categorically eligible students receiving free meals  HHFKA also authorized the school meals Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from nonhousehold application sources (primarily direct certification through other programs)  Based on the statutory parameters, USDA-FNS piloted CEP in various states over three school years and it expanded nationwide in school year 2014-2015  Eligible LEAs have until June 30 of each year to notify USDA-FNS if they will participate in CEP  According to a database maintained by the Food Research and Action Center, just over 20,700 schools in more than 3,500 school districts (LEAs) participated in CEP in SY2016-2017, an increase of approximately 2,500 schools compared to SY2015-2016  For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children the school(s) must be eligible for CEP based on the share (40% or greater) of enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt-in to CEP  Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal  Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible (the "identified student percentage" or ISP) is multiplied by a factor of 1 6 to estimate the proportion of students who would be eligible for free or reduced-price meals had they been certified via application  The result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far lower paid meal rate  For example, if a CEP school identifies that 40% of students are eligible for free meals, then 64% of the meals served will be reimbursed at the free meal rate and 36% at the paid meal rate  Schools that identify 62 5% or more students as eligible for free meals receive the free meal reimbursement for all meals served  Some of the considerations that may impact a school's decision to participate in CEP include whether the new funding formula would be beneficial for their school meal budget; an interest in reducing paperwork for families and schools; and an interest in providing more free meals, including meals to students who have not participated in the program before  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) set in motion changes to the nutrition standards for school meals, requiring USDA to update the standards within a certain timeframe  The law required that the revised standards be based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the Health and Medicine Division) at the National Academy of Sciences  The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance related to implementation  USDA published the final regulations in January 2012  The final rule sought to align school meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and, generally consistent with IOM's recommendations, increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk in school meals  The regulations also included calorie maximums and sodium limits to phase in over time, among other requirements  The nutrition standards largely took effect in SY2012-2013 for lunches and in SY2013-2014 for breakfasts  A few other requirements were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years  Some schools experienced difficulty implementing the new guidelines, and Congress and USDA have made changes to the 2012 final rule's whole grain, sodium, and milk requirements  For SY2019-2020 and onwards, schools are operating under a final rule published December 12, 2018  The HHFKA also gave USDA the authority to regulate other foods in the school nutrition environment  Sometimes called "competitive foods," these include foods and drinks sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, snack bars and concession stands, and fundraisers  Relying on recommendations made by a 2007 IOM report, USDA-FNS promulgated a proposed rule and then an interim final rule in June 2013, which went into effect for SY2014-2015  The interim final rule created nutrition guidelines for all non-meal foods and beverages that are sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal)  The final rule, published on July 29, 2016, maintained the interim final rules with minor modifications  Under the final standards, these foods must meet whole-grain requirements; have certain primary ingredients; and meet calorie, sodium, and fat limits, among other requirements  Schools are limited to a list of no- and low-calorie beverages they may sell (with larger portion sizes and caffeine allowed in high schools)  There are no limits on fundraisers selling foods that meet the interim final rule's guidelines  Fundraisers outside of the school day are not subject to the guidelines  HHFKA and the interim final rule provide states with discretion to exempt infrequent fundraisers selling foods or beverages that do not meet the nutrition standards  The rule does not limit foods brought from home, only foods sold at school during the school day  The federal standards are minimum standards; states and school districts are permitted to issue more stringent policies  In FY2017, NSLP subsidized 4 9 billion lunches to children in close to 96,000 schools and 3,200 residential child care institutions (RCCIs)  Average daily participation was 30 0 million students (58% of children enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  Of the participating students, 66 7% (20 0 million) received free lunches and 6 5% (2 0 million) received reduced-price lunches  The remainder were served full-price meals, though schools still receive a reimbursement for these meals  Figure 3 shows FY2017 participation data  FY2017 federal school lunch costs totaled approximately $13 6 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  The vast majority of this funding is for per-meal reimbursements for free and reduced-price lunches  The HHFKA also provided an additional 6-cent per-lunch reimbursement to schools that provide meals that meet the updated nutritional guidelines requirements  This bonus is not provided for breakfast, but funds may be used to support schools' breakfast programs  NSLP lunch reimbursement rates are listed in Table B -1   In addition to federal cash subsidies, schools participating in NSLP receive USDA-acquired commodity food s   Schools are entitled to a specific, inflation-indexed value of USDA commodity foods for each lunch they serve  Also, schools may receive donations of bonus commodities acquired by USDA in support of the farm economy  In FY2017, the value of federal commodity food aid to schools totaled nearly $1 4 billion  The per-meal rate for commodity food assistance is included in Table B-4   While the vast majority of NSLP funding is for lunches served during the school day, NSLP may also be used to support snack service during the school year and to serve meals during the summer  These features are discussed in subsequent sections, " Summer Meals " and " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " Reimbursement rates for snacks are listed in Table B -2   The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides per-meal cash subsidies for breakfasts served in schools  Participating schools receive subsidies based on their status as a severe need or nonsevere need institution  Schools can qualify as a severe need school if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at reduced prices  See Table B -3 for SBP reimbursement rates  Figure 4 displays SBP participation data for FY2017  In that year, SBP subsidized over 2 4 billion breakfasts in over 88,000 schools and nearly 3,200 RCCIs  Average daily participation was 14 7 million children (30 1% of the students enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  The majority of meals served through SBP are free or reduced-price  Of the participating students, 79 1% (11 6 million) received free meals and 5 7% (835,000) purchased reduced-price meals  Federal school breakfast costs for the fiscal year totaled approximately $4 3 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  Significantly fewer schools and students participate in SBP than in NSLP  Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by students in order to receive a meal and eat before school starts  Some schools offer (and anti-hunger groups have encouraged) models of breakfast service that can result in greater SBP participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, where meals are delivered in the classroom; "grab and go" carts, where students receive a bagged breakfast that they bring to class, or serving breakfast later in the day in middle and high schools  Unlike NSLP, commodity food assistance is not a formal part of SBP funding; however, commodities provided through NSLP may be used for school breakfasts as well  In addition to the school meals programs discussed above, other federal child nutrition programs provide federal subsidies and commodity food assistance for schools and other institutions that offer meals and snacks to children in early childhood, summer, and after-school settings  This assistance is provided to (1) schools and other governmental institutions, (2) private for-profit and nonprofit child care centers, (3) family/group day care homes, and (4) nongovernmental institutions/organizations that offer outside-of-school programs for children  (Although this report focuses on the programs that serve children, one child nutrition program (CACFP) also serves day care centers for chronically impaired adults and elderly persons under the same general per-meal/snack subsidy terms ) The programs in the sections to follow serve comparatively fewer children and spend comparatively fewer federal funds than the school meal programs  CACFP subsidizes meals and snacks served in early childhood, day care, and after-school settings  CACFP provides subsidies for meals and snacks served at participating nonresidential child care centers, family day care homes, and (to a lesser extent) adult day care centers  The program also provides assistance for meals served at after-school programs  CACFP reimbursements are available for meals and snacks served to children age 12 or under, migrant children age 15 or under, children with disabilities of any age, and, in the case of adult care centers, chronically impaired and elderly adults  Children in early childhood settings are the overwhelming majority of those served by the program  CACFP provides federal reimbursements for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served in participating centers (facilities or institutions) or day care homes (private homes)  The eligibility and funding rules for CACFP meals and snacks depend first on whether the participating institution is a center or a day care home (the next two sections discuss the rules specific to centers and day care homes)  According to FY2017 CACFP data, child care centers have an average daily attendance of about 56 children per center, day care homes have an average daily attendance of approximately 7 children per home, and adult day care centers typically care for an average of 48 chronically ill or elderly adults per center  Providers must demonstrate that they comply with government-established standards for other child care programs  Like in school meals, federal assistance is made up overwhelmingly of cash reimbursements calculated based on the number of meals/snacks served and federal per-meal/snack reimbursements rates, but a far smaller share of federal aid (4 3% in FY2017) is in the form of federal USDA commodity foods (or cash in lieu of foods)  Federal CACFP reimbursements flow to individual providers either directly from the administering state agency (this is the case with many child/adult care centers able to handle their own CACFP administrative functions) or through "sponsors" who oversee and provide administrative support for a number of local providers (this is the case with some child/adult care centers and with all day care homes)  In FY2017, total CACFP spending was over $3 5 billion, including cash reimbursement, commodity food assistance, and costs for sponsor audits  (See Table 3 for a further breakdown of CACFP costs ) This total also includes the after-school meals and snacks provided through CACFP's "at-risk after-school" pathway; this aspect of the program is discussed later in " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " As with school foods, the HHFKA required USDA to update CACFP's meal patterns  USDA's final rule revised the meal patterns for both meals served in child care centers and day care homes, as well as preschool meals served through the NSLP and SBP, effective October 1, 2017  For infants (under 12 months of age), the new meal patterns eliminated juice, supported breastfeeding, and set guidelines for the introduction of solid foods, among other changes  For children ages one and older, the new meal patterns increased whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and low-fat and fat-free milk; limited sugar in cereals and yogurts; and prohibited frying, among other requirements  Child care centers in CACFP can be (1) public or private nonprofit centers, (2) Head Start centers, (3) for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet certain requirements as to the proportion of low-income children they enroll), and (4) shelters for homeless families  Adult day care centers include public or private nonprofit centers and for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet minimum requirements related to serving low-income disabled and elderly adults)  In FY2017, over 65,000 child care centers with an average daily attendance of over 3 6 million children participated in CACFP  Over 2,700 adult care centers served nearly 132,000 adults through CACFP  Participating centers may receive daily reimbursements for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks for each participant, so long as the meals and snacks meet federal nutrition standards  The eligibility rules for CACFP centers largely track those of NSLP: children in households at or below 130% of the current poverty line qualify for free meals/snacks while those between 130% and 185% of poverty qualify for reduced-price meals/snacks (see Table 2 )  In addition, participation in the same categorical eligibility programs as NSLP as well as foster child status convey eligibility for free meals in CACFP  Like school meals, eligibility is determined through paper applications or direct certification processes  Like school meals, all meals and snacks served in the centers are federally subsidized to some degree, even those that are paid  Different reimbursement amounts are provided for breakfasts, lunches/suppers, and snacks, and reimbursement rates are set in law and indexed for inflation annually  The largest subsidies are paid for meals and snacks served to participants with family income below 130% of the federal poverty income guidelines (the income limit for free school meals), and the smallest to those who have not met a means test  See Table B -5 for current CACFP center reimbursement rates  Unlike school meals, CACFP institutions are less likely to collect per-meal payments  Although federal assistance for day care centers differentiates by household income, centers have discretion on their pricing of meals  Centers may adjust their regular fees (tuition) to account for federal payments, but CACFP itself does not regulate these fees  In addition, centers can charge families separately for meals/snacks, so long as there are no charges for children meeting free-meal/snack income tests and limited charges for those meeting reduced-price income tests  Independent centers are those without sponsors handling administrative responsibilities  These centers must pay for administrative costs associated with CACFP out of nonfederal funds or a portion of their meal subsidy payments  For centers with sponsors, the sponsors may retain a proportion of the meal reimbursement payments they receive on behalf of their centers to cover such costs  CACFP-supported day care homes serve a smaller number of children than CACFP-supported centers , both in terms of the total number of children served and the average number of children per facility  Roughly 17% of children in CACFP (approximately 757,000 in FY2017 average daily attendance) are served through day care homes  In FY2017, approximately 103,000 homes (with just over 700 sponsors) received CACFP support  As with centers, payments to day care homes are provided for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks a day for each child  Unlike centers, day care homes must participate under the auspices of a public or, more often, private nonprofit sponsor that typically has 100 or more homes under its supervision  CACFP day care home sponsors receive monthly administrative payments based on the number of homes for which they are responsible  Federal reimbursements for family day care homes differ by the home's status as "Tier I" or "Tier II " Unlike centers, day care homes receive cash reimbursements (but not commodity foods) that generally are not based on the child participants' household income  Instead, there are two distinct, annually indexed reimbursement rates that are based on area or operator eligibility criteria Tier I homes are located in low-income areas (defined as areas in which at least 50% of school-age and enrolled children qualify for free or reduced-price meals) or operated by low-income providers whose household income meets the free or reduced-price income standards  They receive higher subsidies for each meal/snack they serve  Tier II (lower) rates are by default those for homes that do not qualify for Tier I rates; however, Tier II providers may seek the higher Tier I subsidy rates for individual low-income children for whom financial information is collected and verified  (See Table B-6 for current Tier I and Tier II reimbursement rates ) Additionally, HHFKA introduced a number of additional ways (as compared to prior law) by which family day care homes can qualify as low-income and get Tier I rates for the entire home or for individual children  As with centers, there is no requirement that meals/snacks specifically identified as free or reduced-price be offered; however, unlike centers, federal rules prohibit any separate meal charges  Current law SFSP and the NSLP/SBP Seamless Summer Option provide meals in congregate settings nationwide; the related Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBTC or Summer EBT) demonstration project is an alternative to congregate settings  SFSP supports meals for children during the summer months  The program provides assistance to local public institutions and private nonprofit service institutions running summer youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, and camps  Assistance is primarily in the form of cash reimbursements for each meal or snack served; however, federally donated commodity foods are also offered  Participating service institutions are often entities that provide ongoing year-round service to the community including schools, local governments, camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and private nonprofit organizations like churches  Similar to the CACFP model, sponsors are institutions that manage the food preparation, financial, and administrative responsibilities of SFSP  Sites are the places where food is served and eaten  At times, a sponsor may also be a site  State agencies authorize sponsors, monitor and inspect sponsors and sites, and implement USDA policy  Unlike CACFP, sponsors are required for an institution's participation in SFSP as a site  In FY2017, nearly 5,500 sponsors with 50,000 food service sites participated in the SFSP and served an average of approximately 2 7 million children daily (according to July data)  Participation of sites and children in SFSP has increased in recent years  Program costs for FY2017 totaled over $485 million, including cash assistance, commodity foods, administrative cost assistance, and health inspection costs  There are several options for eligibility and meal/snack service for SFSP sponsors (and their sites) Open sites provide summer food to all children in the community  These sites are certified based on area eligibility measures, where 50% or more of area children have family income that would make them eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (see Table 2 )  Closed or Enrolled sites provide summer meals/snacks free to all children enrolled at the site  The eligibility test for these sites is that 50% or more of the children enrolled in the sponsor's program must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on household income  Closed/enrolled sites may also become eligible based on area eligibility measures noted above  Summer camps (that are not enrolled sites) receive subsidies only for those children with household eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals  Other programs specified in law , such as the National Youth Sports Program and centers for homeless or migrant children  Summer sponsors get operating cost (food, storage, labor) subsidies for all meals/snacks they serve—up to one meal and one snack, or two meals per child per day  In addition, sponsors receive payments for administrative costs, and states are provided with subsidies for administrative costs and health and meal-quality inspections  See Table B -7 for current SFSP reimbursement rates  Actual payments vary slightly (e g , by about 5 cents for lunches) depending on the location of the site (e g , rural vs  urban) and whether meals are prepared on-site or by a vendor  Although SFSP is the child nutrition program most associated with providing meals during summer months, it is not the only program option for providing these meals and snacks  The Seamless Summer Option, run through NSLP or SBP programs, is also a means through which food can be provided to students during summer months  Much like SFSP, Seamless Summer operates in summer sites (summer camps, sports programs, churches, private nonprofit organizations, etc ) and for a similar duration of time  Unlike SFSP, schools are the only eligible sponsors , although schools may operate the program at other sites  Reimbursement rates for Seamless Summer meals are the same as current NSLP/SBP rates  Beginning in summer 2011 and (as of the date of this report) each summer since, USDA-FNS has operated Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or "Summer EBT") demonstration projects in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)  These Summer EBT projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals  Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided, through a WIC or SNAP EBT card model  In the demonstration projects, these benefits were provided as a supplement to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meals available in congregate settings  Summer EBT and other alternatives to congregate meals through SFSP were first authorized and funded by the FY2010 appropriations law ( P L  111-80 )  Although a number of alternatives were tested and evaluated, findings from Summer EBT were among the most promising, and Congress provided subsequent funding  Summer EBT evaluations showed significant impacts on reducing child food insecurity and improving nutritional intake   Summer EBT was funded by P L  111-80 in the summers from 2011 to 2014  Projects have continued to operate and were annually funded by FY2015-FY2018 appropriations; most recently, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P L  115-141 ) provided $28 million  According to USDA-FNS, in summer 2016 Summer EBT served over 209,000 children in nine states and two tribal nations—an increase from the 11,400 children served when the demonstration began in summer 2011  Schools (and institutions like summer camps and child care facilities) that are not already participating in the other child nutrition programs can participate in the Special Milk Program  Schools may also administer SMP for their part-day sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners  Under SMP, participating institutions provide milk to children for free and/or at a subsidized paid price, depending on how the enrolled institution opts to administer the program (see Table B -8 for current Special Milk reimbursement rates for each of these options) An institution that only sells milk will receive the same per-half pint federal reimbursement for each milk sold (approximately 20 cents)  An institution that sells milk and provides free milk to eligible children (income eligibility is the same as free school meals, see Table 2 ), receives a reimbursement for the milk sold (approximately 20 cents) and a higher reimbursement for the free milks  An institution that does not sell milk provides milk free to all children and receives the same reimbursement for all milk (approximately 20 cents)  This option is sometimes called nonpricing  In FY2017, over 41 million half-pints were subsidized, 9 5% of which were served free  Federal expenditures for this program were approximately $8 3 million in FY2017  States receive formula grants through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, under which state-selected schools receive funds to purchase and distribute fresh fruit and vegetable snacks to all children in attendance (regardless of family income)  Money is distributed by a formula under which about half the funding is distributed equally to each state and the remainder is allocated by state population  States select participating schools (with an emphasis on those with a higher proportion of low-income children) and set annual per-student grant amounts (between $50 and $75)  Funding is set by law at $150 million for school year 2011-2012 and inflation-indexed for every year after  In FY2017, states used approximately $184 million in FFVP funds  FFVP is funded by a mandatory transfer of funds from USDA's Section 32 program—a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  This transfer is required by FFVP's authorizing laws (Section 19 of the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act and Section 4304 of P L  110-246 )  Up until FY2018's law, annual appropriations laws delayed a portion of the funds to the next fiscal year  After a pilot period, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P L  108-265 ) permanently authorized and funded FFVP for a limited number of states and Indian reservations  In recent years, FFVP has been amended by omnibus farm bill laws rather than through child nutrition reauthorizations  The 2008 farm bill ( P L  110-246 ) expanded FFVP's mandatory funding, specifically providing funds through Section 32, and enabled all states to participate in the program  The 2014 farm bill ( P L  113-79 ) essentially made no changes to this program but did include, and fund at $5 million in FY2014, a pilot project that requires USDA to test offering frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables and publish an evaluation of the pilot  Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) participated in the pilot in SY2014-2015 and the evaluation was published in 2017  Other proposals to expand fruits and vegetables offered in FFVP have been introduced in both the 114 th and 115 th Congress  Two of the child nutrition programs discussed in previous sections, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), provide federal support for snacks and meals served during after-school programs  NSLP provides reimbursements for after-school snacks; however, this option is open only to schools that already participate in NSLP  These schools may operate after-school snack-only programs during the school year, and can do so in two ways: (1) if low-income area eligibility criteria are met, provide free snacks in lower-income areas; or (2) if area eligibility criteria are not met, offer free, reduced-price, or fully paid-for snacks, based on household income eligibility (like lunches in NSLP)  The vast majority of snacks provided through this program are through the first option  Through this program, approximately 206 million snacks were served in FY2017 (a daily average of nearly 1 3 million)  This compares with nearly 4 9 billion lunches served (a daily average of 27 8 million)  CACFP provides assistance for after-school food in two ways  First, centers and homes that participate in CACFP and provide after-school care may participate in traditional CACFP (the eligibility and administration described earlier)  Second, centers in areas where at least half the children in the community are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals can opt to participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program, which provides free snacks and suppers  Expansion of the At-Risk After-School meals program was a major policy change included in HHFKA  Prior to the law, 13 states were permitted to offer CACFP At-Risk After-School meals (instead of just a snack); the law allowed all CACFP state agencies to offer such meals  In FY2017, the At-Risk Afterschool program served a total of approximately 242 6 million free meals and snacks to a daily average of more than 1 7 million children  Federal child nutrition laws authorize and program funding supports a range of additional programs, initiatives, and activities  Through State Administrative Expenses funding, states are entitled to federal grants to help cover administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated with child nutrition programs  The national amount each year is equal to about 2% of child nutrition reimbursements  The majority of this money is allocated to states based on their share of spending on the covered programs; about 15% is allocated under a discretionary formula granting each state additional amounts for CACFP, commodity distribution, and Administrative Review efforts  In addition, states receive payments for their role in overseeing summer programs (about 2 5% of their summer program aid)  States are free to apportion their federal administrative expense payments among child nutrition initiatives (including commodity distribution activities) as they see fit, and appropriated funding is available to states for two years  State Administrative Expense spending in FY2017 totaled approximately $279 million  Team Nutrition is a USDA-FNS program that includes a variety of school meals initiatives around nutrition education and the nutritional content of the foods children eat in schools  This includes Team Nutrition Training Grants, which provide funding to state agencies for training and technical assistance, such as help implementing USDA's nutrition requirements and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans  From 2004 to 2018, Team Nutrition also included the HealthierUS Schools Challenge (HUSSC), which originated in the 2004 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act  HUSSC was a voluntary certification initiative designed to recognize schools that have created a healthy school environment through the promotion of nutrition and physical activity  Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts that bring regionally and locally produced foods into school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition  The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers  HHFKA amended existing child nutrition programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive farm-to-school grants that support schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a school's access to locally produced foods  The FY2018 appropriations law provided an additional $5 million in discretionary funding to remain available until expended  Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning, purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing farm-to-school programs  USDA's Office of Community Food Systems provides additional resources on farm-to-school issues  Through an Administrative Review process (formerly referred to as Coordinated Review Effort (CRE)), USDA-FNS, in cooperation with state agencies, conducts periodic on-site NSLP school compliance and accountability evaluations to improve management and identify administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems  State agencies are required to conduct administrative reviews of all school food authorities (SFAs) that operate the NSLP under their jurisdiction at least once during a three-year review cycle  Federal Administrative Review expenditures were approximately $9 9 million in FY2017  USDA-FNS and state agencies conduct many other child nutrition program support activities for which dedicated funding is provided  Among other examples, there is the Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN), which provides technical assistance, instruction, and materials related to nutrition and food service management; it receives $5 million a year in mandatory funding appropriated in statute  ICN is located at the University of Mississippi  USDA-FNS provides training on food safety education  Funding is also provided for USDA-FNS to conduct studies, provide training and technical assistance, and oversee payment accuracy  Appendix A  Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix B  Per-meal or Per-snack Reimbursement Rates for Child Nutrition Programs This appendix lists the specific reimbursement rates discussed in the earlier sections of the report  Reimbursement rates are adjusted for inflation for each school or calendar year according to terms laid out in the programs' authorizing laws  Each year, the new rates are announced in the Federal Register   


Report 2:  NASA’s telescope and other science projects will always have inherent technical, design, and integration risks because they are complex, specialized, and often push the state of the art in space technology  But too often, our reports find that management and oversight problems—which can include poor planning, optimistic cost estimating, funding gaps, lax oversight, and poor contractor performance, among other issues—are the real drivers behind cost and schedule growth  To its credit, NASA has taken significant steps, partly in response to our past recommendations, to reduce acquisition risk from both a technical and management standpoint, including actions to enhance cost and schedule estimating, provide adequate levels of reserves to projects, establish better processes and metrics to monitor projects, and expand the use of earned value management to better monitor contractor performance  For example, in November 2012, we found that NASA employee skill sets available to analyze and implement earned value management vary widely from center to center, and we recommended that NASA conduct an earned value management skills gap analysis to identify areas requiring augmented capability across the agency, and, based on the results of the assessment, develop a workforce training plan to address any deficiencies  NASA concurred with this recommendation and developed an earned value management training plan in 2014 based on the results of an earned value management skills gap analysis that was conducted in 2013  Moreover, in recent years, we have found that many of the projects within the agency’s major project portfolio have improved their cost and schedule performance  Nevertheless, the extent to which NASA has adopted some of the following lessons learned within its portfolio of major projects is mixed, and NASA has an opportunity to strengthen its program management of major acquisitions, including its space telescopes, by doing so  Manage Cost and Schedule Performance for Large Projects to Limit Implications for Entire Portfolio  In 2013, following JWST’s cost increases and schedule growth, we found that though cost and schedule growth can occur on any project, increases associated with NASA’s most costly and complex missions can have cascading effects on the rest of the portfolio  For example, we found that the JWST cost growth would have reverberating effects on the portfolio for years to come and required the agency to identify $1 4 billion in additional resources over fiscal years 2012 through 2017, according to Science Mission Directorate officials  NASA identified approximately half of this required funding from the four science divisions within the Science Mission Directorate account  The majority of the cuts were related to future high priority missions, missions in the operations and sustainment phase, and research and analysis  In essence, NASA had to mortgage future high priority missions and research to address JWST’s additional resource needs  Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded in the past that it is important for NASA to have a clearly articulated and consistently applied method for prioritizing why and how its scarce fiscal resources are apportioned with respect to the science program in general and on a more granular level among component scientific disciplines  The academy noted that failure to do so could result in a loss of capacity, capability, and human resources in a number of scientific disciplines and technological areas that may take a generation or more to reconstitute once eliminated  NASA’s establishment of the WFIRST Independent External Technical/Management/Cost Review that I previously discussed is a step in the right direction to help ensure the Astrophysics Division incorporates this lesson learned  Establish Adequate Cost and Schedule Reserves to Address Risks  Twice in the history of the JWST program, independent reviewers found that the program’s planned cost reserves were inadequate  First, in April 2006, an Independent Review Team confirmed that the project’s technical content was complete and sound, but expressed concern over the project’s reserve funding, reporting that it was too low and phased in too late in the development lifecycle  The review team reported that for a project as complex as JWST, 25 to 30 percent total reserve funding was appropriate  The team cautioned that low reserve funding compromised the project’s ability to resolve issues, address risk areas, and accommodate unknown problems  As I previously mentioned, following additional cost increases and schedule threats, NASA commissioned the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel  In 2010, the panel again concluded JWST was executing well from a technical standpoint, but that the baseline cost estimate did not reflect the most probable cost with adequate reserves in each year of project execution, resulting in an unexecutable project  NASA heeded these lessons when it established a new baseline for JWST in 2011  For example, the revised schedule included more reserves than required by the procedural requirements issued by the NASA center responsible for managing JWST  We have found, however, that NASA has not applied this lesson learned to all of its large projects— most notably with its human spaceflight projects, including the Space Launch System, Orion Crew Capsule, and associated ground systems— and similar outcomes to the JWST project have started to emerge with these projects  We previously reported that all three of these programs were operating with limited cost reserves, which limited each program’s ability to address risks and unforeseen technical challenges  For example, we found in July 2016 that the Orion program planned to maintain very low levels of annual cost reserves until 2018  The lack of available cost reserves in the near term led to the program deferring work to address technical issues to stay within budget, and put the program’s future cost reserves at risk of being overwhelmed by deferred work  In April 2017, we also found that all three programs faced development challenges in completing work, and each had little to no schedule reserve remaining to the launch date—meaning they would have to complete all remaining work with minimal delay during the most challenging stage of development  We found that it was unlikely that the programs would achieve the planned launch readiness date and recommended that NASA reassess the date  NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would establish a new launch readiness date  In November 2017, NASA announced that a review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicated a launch date of June 2020—a delay of 19 months—but the agency will manage to a December 2019 launch date because, according to NASA, they have put in mitigation strategies for those risks  We will follow-up on those mitigation strategies as part of future work on the human space exploration programs  Regularly and Consistently Update Project JCLs to Provide Realistic Estimates to Decision Makers  In 2009, NASA began requiring that programs and projects with estimated life-cycle costs greater than $250 million develop a JCL prior to project confirmation  This was a positive step for NASA to help ensure that cost and schedule estimates are realistic and projects are thoroughly planning for anticipated risks  This is because a JCL assigns a confidence level, or likelihood, of a project meeting its cost and schedule estimates  Our cost estimating best practices recommend that cost estimates should be updated to reflect changes to a program or be kept current as a program moves through milestones  As new risks emerge on a project, an updated cost and schedule risk analysis can provide realistic estimates to decision-makers, including the Congress  This is especially true for NASA’s largest projects as updated estimates may require the Congress to consider a variety of actions  However, there is no requirement for NASA projects to update their JCLs, and our prior work has found that projects—including JWST—do not regularly update cost risk analyses to take into account newly emerged risks  Our ongoing work indicates that of the 16 major projects currently in NASA’s portfolio that have developed JCL estimates, only 2 have reported updating their JCLs (other than required due to a rebaseline)  For example, the Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport Project (InSight), a Mars lander, updated its JCL after the project missed its committed launch date  As a result, the project was able to provide additional information to decision makers about the probability that it will meet its revised cost and schedule estimates  As a project reaches the later stages of development, especially integration and testing, the types of risks the project will face may change  An updated project JCL would provide both project and agency management with data on relevant risks that can guide the project decisions  For example, in December 2012, we recommended the JWST project update its JCL  NASA concurred with this recommendation; however, we recently closed the recommendation because NASA had not taken steps to implement it and the amount of time remaining before launch would not have allowed the benefit of implementing the recommendation to be realized  An updated JCL may have portended the current schedule delays, which could have been proactively addressed by the project  Enhance Oversight of Contractors to Improve Project Outcomes  In December 2012, we found that the JWST project had taken steps to enhance communications with and oversight of its contractors  According to project officials, the increased communication allowed them to better identify and manage project risks by having more visibility into contractors’ activities  The project reported that a great deal of communication existed across the project prior to the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel; however, additional improvements were made  For example, the project increased its presence at contractor facilities as necessary to provide assistance; this included assigning two engineers on a recurring basis at a Lockheed Martin facility to assist in solving problems with an instrument  The JWST project also assumed full responsibility for the mission system engineering functions from Northrop Grumman in March 2011  NASA and Northrop Grumman officials both said that NASA is better suited to perform these tasks  We continue to see instances in our ongoing work that highlight the importance of implementing this lesson learned from JWST  For example, we found in 2017 that the Space Network Ground Segment Sustainment project—a project that plans to develop and deliver a new ground system for one Space Network site that provides essential communications tracking services to NASA and non-NASA missions—exceeded its original cost baseline by at least $401 7 million and been delayed by 27 months  The project has attributed some of the cost overruns and schedule delays to the contractor’s incomplete understanding of its requirements, which led to poor contractor plans and late design changes  The project also took steps to assign a new NASA project manager, increase physical presence at the contractor facility, and have more staff focused on validation and verification activities  In summary, NASA continues to make progress developing its space telescopes to help understand the universe and our place in it  But much like other major projects that NASA is developing, there continues to be an opportunity for NASA to learn from JWST and other projects that have suffered from cost overruns and schedule delays  Key project management tools and prior GAO recommendations that I have highlighted here today, could help to better position these large, complex, and technically challenging efforts for a successful outcome  We look forward to continuing to work with NASA and this subcommittee in addressing these issues  Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Cristina T  Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management at (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement include Molly Traci, Assistant Director; Richard Cederholm, Assistant Director; Carrie Rogers; Lisa Fisher; Laura Greifner; Erin Kennedy; and Jose Ramos  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: Acquisition management has been a long-standing challenge at NASA, although GAO has reported on improvements the agency has made in recent years. Three space telescope projects are the key enablers for NASA to achieve its astrophysics' science goals, which include seeking to understand the universe. In its fiscal year 2018 budget request, NASA asked for about $697 million for these three projects, which represents over 50 percent of NASA's budget for its astrophysics' major projects. In total, these projects represent an expected investment of at least $12.4 billion. This statement reflects preliminary observations on (1) the current status and cost of NASA's major telescope projects and (2) lessons learned that can be applied to NASA's management of its telescope projects. This statement is based on ongoing work on JWST and ongoing work on the status of NASA's major projects. Both reports are planned to be published in Spring 2018. This statement is also based on past GAO reports on JWST and NASA's acquisitions of major projects, and NASA input. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) current portfolio of major space telescopes includes three projects that vary in cost, complexity, and phase of the acquisition life cycle. GAO's ongoing work indicates that these projects are each making progress in line with their phase of the acquisition cycle but also face some challenges. For example, the current launch date for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project reflects a 57-60-month delay from the project's original schedule. GAO's preliminary observations indicate this project still has significant integration and testing to complete, with very little schedule reserve remaining to account for delays. Therefore, additional delays beyond the delay of up to 8 months recently announced are likely, and funding available under the $8 billion Congressional cost cap for formulation and development may be inadequate. There are a number of lessons learned from its acquisitions that NASA could consider to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes for its telescope projects, as well as for its larger portfolio of projects, such as its human spaceflight projects. For example, twice in the history of the JWST program, independent reviews found that the program was not holding adequate cost and schedule reserves. GAO has found that NASA has not applied this lesson learned to all of its large projects, and similar outcomes to JWST have started to emerge. For example, NASA did not incorporate this lesson with its human spaceflight programs. In July 2016 and April 2017, GAO found that these programs were holding inadequate levels of cost and schedule reserves to cover unexpected cost increases or delays. In April 2017, GAO recommended that NASA reassess the date of the programs' first test flight. NASA concurred and, in November 2017, announced a launch delay of up to 19 months. GAO is not making any recommendations in this statement, but has made recommendations in prior reports to strengthen NASA's acquisition management of its major projects. NASA has generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and taken steps to implement them.