United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10 a.m.

Thursday,

September 17, 1998

YEAR 2000 COMPUTING

CRISIS

Significant Risks Remain to

Department of Education’s

Student Financial Aid

Systems

Statement of Joel C. Willemssen

Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-98-302

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to testify before you today on the status of the Department

of Education’s efforts to ensure that its computer systems supporting

critical student financial aid activities will be able to process information

reliably after December 31, 1999. The Year 2000 (Y2K) computing crisis has

received much attention in recent months—and deservedly so. Virtually

every organization, public and private, that uses computers is at risk.1

 My

statement today will describe the risks to the Department of Education,

with a focus on student financial aid systems, actions the department has

taken in recent months to address these risks, and key issues the

department must deal with if its systems are to be ready for the century

change: testing of systems, exchanging data with internal and external

partners, and developing business continuity and contingency plans.

In brief, Education faces major risks that Year 2000 failures could severely

disrupt the student financial aid delivery process, including delaying

disbursements and application processing. Further, because of systems

interdependencies, repercussions from Year 2000-related problems could

be felt throughout the student financial aid community—a network

including students, institutions of higher education, financial

organizations, and other government agencies. The department was very

slow in implementing a comprehensive Year 2000 program to address

these risks—basic awareness and assessment tasks were not completed

until recently. Education is now accelerating its program, but with the

slow start, it remains in a position of playing catch up. Accordingly, the

department has major challenges ahead but limited time remaining to

adequately deal with them. Therefore, it must also focus on developing

appropriate contingency plans to ensure business continuity in the event

of key systems failures.

Our Nation’s Year

2000 Risks Are High

Before I go into detail regarding the Department of Education’s Year 2000

challenges, I would like to first discuss the Year 2000 issue in broader

terms to put the department’s efforts into perspective. As the world’s most

advanced and most dependent user of information technology, the United

States possesses close to half of all computer capacity and 60 percent of

1

For the past several decades, computer systems have typically used two digits to represent the year,

such as “98” for 1998, in order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this

format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as “00.” As a result,

if not modified, systems or applications that use dates or perform date- or time-sensitive calculations

may generate incorrect results beyond 1999.

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Internet assets.2

 Consequently, the upcoming change of century is a

sweeping and urgent challenge for public-sector and private-sector

organizations alike.

For this reason we have designated the Year 2000 computing problem as a

high-risk area3

 for the federal government, and have published guidance4

to help organizations successfully address the issue. To date, we have

issued over 60 reports and testimony statements detailing specific findings

and recommendations related to the Year 2000 readiness of a wide range

of federal agencies.5

 Our reviews of federal Year 2000 programs have

found uneven progress, and our reports contain numerous

recommendations, which the agencies have almost universally agreed to

implement. Among them are the need to establish priorities, solidify data

exchange agreements, and develop contingency plans. While progress has

been made in addressing the federal government’s Year 2000 readiness,

serious vulnerabilities remain and many agencies are behind schedule.

Education’s Mission

Relies on Information

Systems

The Department of Education’s mission is to ensure equal access to

education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

To carry out this mission, it works with states, schools, communities,

institutions of higher education, and financial institutions by providing

• grants to education agencies and institutions to strengthen teaching and

learning;

• student loans and grants to help pay the costs of postsecondary education;

• grants for literacy, employment, and self-sufficiency training for adults;

• enforcement of civil rights laws to ensure nondiscrimination by recipients

of federal education funds; and

• support for research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of

information to improve educational quality and effectiveness.

2

Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s Infrastructures (President’s Commission on Critical

Infrastructure Protection, October 1997).

3

High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, February 1997).

4

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997), which

addresses the key tasks needed to complete each phase of a Year 2000 program (awareness,

assessment, renovation, validation, and implementation); Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business

Continuity and Contingency Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, August 1998), which describes the tasks

needed to ensure the continuity of agency operations; and Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing

Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Exposure Draft, June 1998), which discusses the need to plan and conduct

Year 2000 tests in a structured and disciplined fashion.

5

A listing of our publications is included as an attachment to this statement.

Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
The largest single federal elementary and secondary education grant

program is title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This

program serves educationally disadvantaged children through

program-specific grants. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation for the

disadvantaged was $7.3 billion.

Student financial aid programs are administered by Education’s Office of

Postsecondary Education (OPE) under title IV of the Higher Education Act

of 1965, as amended. The department is responsible for the collection of

more than $150 billion in outstanding loans, and its data systems track

approximately 93 million student loans and 15 million grants. Four major

types of student aid are currently in use: the Federal Family Education

Loan Program (FFELP),6

 the Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP), the

Federal Pell Grant Program, and campus-based programs.7

 These

programs together will make available about $51 billion to about 9 million

students during the 1999-2000 academic year.

FFELP and FDLP are the two largest postsecondary student loan programs,

and Pell is the largest postsecondary grant program. FFELP provides

student loans, through private lending institutions, that are guaranteed

against default by some 36 guaranty agencies8

 and insured by the federal

government, while FDLP provides student loans directly from the federal

government. Pell provides grants to disadvantaged students.

In many ways, Education’s student financial aid delivery system is similar

to functions performed in the banking industry, such as making loans,

reporting account status, and collecting payments. As with the banks, the

department faces a serious and complex challenge with the Year 2000

problem because of its heavy reliance on technology. The department

currently maintains 11 major systems for administering student financial

aid programs. These systems were developed independently over time by

multiple contractors in response to new functions, programs, or mandates,

resulting in a complex, highly heterogeneous systems environment.9

 The

6

FFELP was formerly the Guaranteed and Stafford Student Loan programs.

7

The campus-based programs include the Federal Work-Study Program, the Federal Perkins Loan

Program, and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program.

8

State and private nonprofit guaranty agencies act as agents of the federal government, providing a

variety of services, including payment of defaulted claims, collection of some defaulted loans,

default-avoidance activities, and counseling to schools and students.

9

Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture Needed to Improve Programs’ Efficiency

(GAO/AIMD-97-122, July 29, 1997).

Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
systems range from legacy mainframes, several originally developed over

15 years ago, to recently developed client-server environments.10 The fiscal

year 1998 budget to develop, operate, and maintain these systems is

$311 million, and is expected to increase to $378 million in fiscal year 1999.

Education’s Risks

Require Strong

Management

Approach

According to Education’s own assessments of the severity of Year 2000

failures, the student financial aid delivery process could experience major

problems unless all systems are compliant in time. These include

• delays in disbursements, such that lenders might not receive timely

interest and allowance payments, if external data exchanges fail;

• reduction in the department’s ability to transfer payments, process

applications for program benefits, or monitor program operations;

• risks that student financial aid programs may not function properly if they

do not receive critical data for originating loans and for reporting

payments and financial information; and

• risks that postsecondary education students may lack the ability to verify

the current status of their loans or grants.

To overcome these types of risks, Education must implement effective

Year 2000 programs. An effective Year 2000 program requires the

disciplined, coordinated application of scarce resources to an agencywide

system conversion that must be completed by a fixed date, and an

understanding of the wide range of dependencies among information

systems.

An organization can mitigate its risk of Year 2000 complications through a

structured approach and rigorous program management. One generally

accepted approach, presented in our Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An

Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14), has five phases:

• awareness — defining the problem and gaining executive-level support;

• assessment — inventorying and analyzing systems, and prioritizing their

conversion or replacement;

• renovation — converting, replacing, or eliminating selected systems;

• validation — ensuring that all converted or replaced systems and

interfaces will work in an operational environment; and

• implementation — deploying Year 2000-compliant systems and

components, and implementing contingency plans, if necessary.

10In a client-server environment, individual workstations (the client) and shared processors (the

server) cooperate over a network to complete tasks.

Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Education’s Year 2000

Program Started Very

Slowly

Education was very slow to establish a comprehensive, timely Year 2000

program. One key factor contributing to this delay was the instability of

the department’s Year 2000 project manager position, which suffered

continual turnover. The department initially established the position in

February 1995 to provide oversight and guidance to Education’s Year 2000

activities. During the 19-month tenure of the first project manager, a

high-level Year 2000 briefing document (dated May 1996) was developed in

response to a request from a congressional committee. At that time,

Education estimated that it would complete a Year 2000 program strategy

document and corresponding management plan by August 1996. However,

no strategy document or management plan was developed, either by that

deadline or during the 14-month tenure of the second project manager,

which ended in September 1997.

The third Year 2000 project manager, who spent only 3 months in the

position, contracted with consultants to assist the department in

developing a draft Year 2000 management plan. The fourth manager,

during his 4-month tenure, initiated many awareness and assessment

activities. Finally, the fifth project manager was assigned on March 30 of

this year, and has continued the progress started by her predecessor.

The frequency of turnover in project managers delayed Education in

completing basic awareness activities. These activities included dedicating

staff to the Year 2000 effort, communicating with data exchange partners,

holding regular steering committee meetings, and developing a

management plan. Project office staff to help the department coordinate

Year 2000 activities were not assigned until December 1997, when the

fourth project manager was appointed. In addition, while a draft

management plan was distributed for comment in mid-November 1997, it

was not made final until April of this year.

Education experienced a corresponding delay with basic assessment

activities, which it did not report as completed until this past

March—about 9 months after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

milestone. These assessment activities included conducting an

enterprisewide inventory of information systems and data interfaces,

assessing and prioritizing systems, establishing Year 2000 project teams

for business areas and major systems, and initiating contingency planning.

Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Figure 1: Education’s Year 2000 Cost Estimate, May 1996 Through August 14, 1998

May 

'96

Aug 

'96

Nov 

'96

Feb 

'97

May 

'97

Aug 

'97

Nov 

'97

Feb 

'98

May 

'98

Aug 

'98

Dollars in millions

$60

$7

$21

$9

$23

$34

$38

Source: Department of Education.

Concurrent with its slowness in completing its assessment, Education’s

estimated costs have fluctuated widely. The initial cost estimate in May

1996 was $60 million,11 which decreased dramatically to $7 million in

February 1997 but then rose again in February 1998 with an estimate of

$23 million. Last month, the cost estimate increased further, to $38 million,

as Education continued renovating and testing its systems. Prior to

February 1998, little documentation existed supporting how these

11The $60 million cost estimate was not changed until February 1997. For our analysis, we assumed the

cost estimate remained constant.

Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
estimates were derived. Figure 1 highlights the wide variation in cost

estimates over the past 2 years.

Education Has

Recently Accelerated

Its Progress

With its slow start, Education has been playing catch up and working to

accelerate its progress. Management staff have regular meetings to discuss

progress on Year 2000 compliance, and principal office staff meet

biweekly to discuss progress on individual mission-critical systems. The

biweekly meetings include Education staff responsible for the particular

system; the system contractor; Year 2000 program office staff; and

contractor staff responsible for independently verifying and validating

renovation, validation, and implementation activities. According to

department officials, Year 2000 compliance has also now been given top

priority in terms of in-house resources.

Education’s Year 2000 management plan established the Year 2000 project

manager as the focal point for monitoring progress, providing support, and

directing the plan. The project manager works with the program offices,

which are responsible for assessing and renovating their systems, as well

as tracking and reporting progress on compliance activities. Senior

leadership of each program office is responsible for providing adequate

support to its Year 2000 tasks and ensuring that Year 2000 compliance is

achieved.

The Department of Education has reported to OMB that it has 14

mission-critical systems, of which 11 are student financial aid systems.

Table 1 summarizes the Year 2000 status of each mission-critical system as

of this month. In brief, according to the department’s September 10, 1998,

report, four mission-critical systems have been implemented and are in

operation, one is in the process of being implemented, five systems are

being validated, and the remaining four are still being renovated.

Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Table 1: Reported Year 2000

Compliance Status of Education’s

Mission-Critical Systems System Current status

Estimated

Y2K cost

(Estimated)

completion

Student financial aid systems

Campus 

Based

System

Implemented $ 196,426 Assessment: 02/97

Renovation: 01/98

Validation: 06/98

Implementation: 06/98

Central

Processing

System

In validation 4,000,000 Assessment: 02/98

Renovation: 06/98

Validation: (01/99)

Implementation: (01/99)

Direct Loan

Central

Database

In validation Included in Direct

Loan Servicing

System

Assessment: 02/98

Renovation: (09/98)a

Validation: (09/98)

Implementation: (10/98)

Direct Loan

Origination

System

Implemented 877,106 Assessment: 03/98

Renovation: 06/98a

Validation: 06/98

Implementation: 08/98

Direct Loan

Servicing

System

In validation 3,601,281 Assessment: 02/98

Renovation: (09/98)a

Validation: (09/98)

Implementation: (10/98)

Federal Family

Education Loan

System

In renovation 4,400,933 Assessment: 10/97

Renovation: (09/98)

Validation: (01/99)

Implementation: (03/99)

Multiple

Data Entry

System

In renovation 1,439,935 Assessment:03/98

Renovation: (09/98)

Validation: (12/98)

Implementation: (01/99)

National

Student Loan

Data System

In validation 1,066,639 Assessment: 11/97

Renovation: 08/98

Validation: (09/98)

Implementation: (10/98)

Postsecondary

Education

Participants

System

Implemented 500,000 Assessment: 10/97

Renovation: 06/98a

Validation: 06/98

Implementation: 07/98

Pell Grant Recipient

Financial Mgmt

System

In renovation 2,091,851 Assessment: 03/98

Renovation: (12/98)

Validation: (12/98)

Implementation: (12/98)

Title IV

Wide Area

Network

In validation 1,005,000 Assessment: 03/98

Renovation: 05/98

Validation: (10/98)

Implementation: (10/98)

(continued)

Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
System Current status

Estimated

Y2K cost

(Estimated)

completion

Other mission-critical systems

Education’s

Central Automated

Processing System

Implemented 90,000 Assessment: 06/98

Renovation: 06/98b

Validation: 06/98

Implementation: 08/98

Education’s

Local Area

Network

In renovation 2,388,557 Assessment: 12/97

Renovation: (11/98)

Validation: (12/98)

Implementation: (01/99)

Impact Aid

System

In implementation 47,304 Assessment: 06/98

Renovation: 06/98b

Validation: 06/98

Implementation: (09/98)

aSystem was initially certified as compliant and not considered to be in need of remediation;

however, corrections were made as the system was validated. As a result, renovation and

validation dates are the same.

bThis is a replacement for a retired system and therefore was not assessed or renovated.

Source: Department of Education. We did not independently verify this information.

Key Issues Remain

That Threaten

Education’s Delivery

of Student Financial

Aid

While there has been recent progress, the Department of Education must

mitigate critical risks that affect its ability to award and track billions of

dollars in student financial aid. Specifically, the department must address

the need for adequate testing, the renovation and testing of data

exchanges, and the development of business continuity and contingency

plans. Unless these issues are effectively addressed, the ability of the

department to deliver financial aid to students will be compromised.

Limited Time Available for

Testing Education’s

Mission-Critical Systems

Complete and thorough Year 2000 testing is essential to providing

reasonable assurance that new or modified systems process dates

correctly and will not jeopardize an organization’s ability to perform core

business operations after the turn of the century. Moreover, since the Year

2000 computing problem is so pervasive, the requisite testing is generally

extensive and expensive. Experience shows that Year 2000 testing is

consuming between 50 and 70 percent of a project’s time and resources.

Agencies must not only test Year 2000 compliance of individual

applications, but also the complex interactions among numerous

converted or replaced computer platforms, operating systems, utilities,

applications, databases, and interfaces. It is also important to work early

Page 9 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
and continually with an organization’s data exchange partners so that

end-to-end testing can be effectively planned and executed. The Society

for Information Management Year 2000 Working Group has noted that

because many enterprises do not have experience with testing at this

order of magnitude, the results will often be significant cost overruns and

missed commitments. Indeed, for Education, the task ahead is

formidable—it requires a cooperative, coordinated, and thorough testing

process across the disparate systems in the student financial aid delivery

network.

Because of Education’s late start and the compression of its Year 2000

compliance schedule to meet the OMB deadline (mission-critical systems to

be implemented by March 31, 1999), time available for key testing

activities within the renovation, validation, and implementation phases for

individual mission-critical systems is limited. In fact, in some cases, the

schedule for Education’s mission-critical systems has less time allocated

for the renovation and validation phases than was spent on assessment.

These are large, often complex systems encompassing hundreds of

thousands and, in some cases, millions of lines of software code.

Accordingly, the limited amount of time available raises concerns about

Education’s ability to complete essential testing in time.

Department officials have acknowledged that completing testing activities

within schedule will be difficult. Indeed, the schedule constraints placed

on test activities for individual systems have already been shown to be

unrealistic in several cases. For example, the schedule for 7 of the 14

mission-critical systems has recently been extended to allow more time for

testing.

Beyond the testing of individual mission-critical systems, Education will

also have to devote a significant amount of time to end-to-end testing of its

mission-critical business processes and supporting systems, such as those

associated with student financial aid delivery. According to Education

officials, the department plans to conduct such testing between January

and March 1999, after all individual mission-critical systems have been

certified as Year 2000 compliant. Tentatively from April to

September 1999, external data exchange partners will have time periods

available for testing their interfaces. However, no detailed plans currently

exist for this testing. Education officials stated that they are working on

these plans and intend to have them completed shortly, pending

discussion with the student financial aid community.

Page 10 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Data Exchanges Are

Critical

As 2000 approaches, organizations must be diligent in implementing

measures to ensure that exchanging data across systems compromises

neither the systems nor the data. Conflicting data exchange formats or

data processed on noncompliant systems could introduce and propagate

errors from one system to another. To mitigate this risk, organizations

must inventory and assess their data exchanges, reach agreements with

data exchange partners on how data will be exchanged, test and

implement data exchange formats, develop and test bridges and filters to

handle nonconforming data, and develop contingency plans in the event of

failure.

Education’s student financial aid data exchange environment is massive

and complex. It includes about 7,500 schools, 6,500 lenders, and 36

guaranty agencies, as well as other federal agencies. Figure 2 provides an

overview of this environment.

To address its data exchanges with schools, lenders, and guaranty

agencies, Education has dictated how the data that these entities provide

to the department should be formatted. Education handles this in one of

two ways: it either provides software to the entity, such as EDExpress

(which specifies the format—including dates—for data exchanges), or

provides the technical specifications for the entity to use in developing the

necessary interface.

Page 11 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Figure 2: Education’s Student Financial Aid Data Exchange Environment

Direct Loan 

Central 

Database

Direct Loan 

Servicing 

System

Direct Loan 

Origination 

System

Students

Schools

Guaranty Agencies

Lenders

Collection

Agencies

National

Collection

Center

Federal

Reserve

System

Internal

Revenue

Service

Social

Security

Administration

State Grant

and

Scholarship

Agencies

Selective

Service

System

Immigration

and

Naturalization

Service

Department

of

Education

Federal Agencies

Internal Systems

Department

of

Justice

Title IV Wide Area Network

Postsecondary 

Education Participants 

System

Campus 

Based 

System

Pell Grant 

Recipient & Fin 

Mgmt System

Multiple Data 

Entry System

Central 

Processing 

System

Federal Family 

Education Loan 

System

National Student 

Loan Data 

System

Education's Central 

Automated Processing 

System

(Figure notes on next page)

Page 12 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Source: Department of Education.

Education has followed up on this approach with its data exchange

partners by (1) developing memorandums of understanding with each

guaranty agency and federal agency and (2) conducting outreach on Year

2000 awareness with schools. Regarding its outreach to schools,

Education has shared information through memoranda (i.e., “Dear

Colleague” letters), presentations at conferences and training sessions,

and over the Internet. The “Dear Colleague” letters provide an overview of

the Year 2000 issue and summarize the department’s approach for

ensuring compliance of student financial aid systems.

To further ensure that Education’s data exchange partners have indeed

made their interfaces compliant, the department will need to engage in

end-to-end testing of its mission-critical business processes, including data

exchanges. As noted earlier, Education has not completed these

end-to-end test plans.

Further complicating data exchange compliance is that Education will

need to ensure that the data it is receiving from its partners are not just

formatted correctly but are accurate. As we have previously reported,

Education has experienced serious data integrity problems in the past.12

To assess how educational institutions are progressing with their Year

2000 programs, the department recently conducted a survey of the Year

2000 readiness of postsecondary schools participating in the Direct Loan

Program. The preliminary results are not encouraging: up to one-third of

the schools did not even have a compliance plan in place.

Business Continuity and

Contingency Planning: A

Necessary Safety Net

Given the challenges Education faces in making sure that all of its

mission-critical systems are adequately tested and in addressing the

complexities of the massive number of data exchanges, it will be difficult

for the department to enter the new century without some problems.

Therefore, it is critical that Education initiate the development of realistic

contingency plans to ensure continuity of core business processes in the

event of Year 2000-induced failures.

12GAO/AIMD-97-122, July 29, 1997.

Page 13 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Business continuity and contingency plans should be formulated to

respond to two types of failure: those that can be predicted (e.g., systems

renovations that are already far behind schedule) and those that are

unforeseen (e.g., systems that fail despite having been certified Year 2000

compliant, or those that cannot be corrected by January 1, 2000, despite

appearing to be on schedule today). Moreover, contingency plans that

focus only on agency systems are inadequate. Federal agencies depend on

data provided by their business partners as well as on services provided by

the public infrastructure. Thus, one weak link anywhere in the chain of

critical dependencies can cause major disruption. Given these

interdependencies, it is imperative that contingency plans be developed

for all critical core business processes and supporting systems, regardless

of whether these systems are owned by the agency.

Our guide on ensuring business continuity and contingency planning,

issued last month, provides further detail on this.13 This guide describes

four phases supported by agency Year 2000 program management:

initiation, business impact analysis, contingency planning, and testing.

Each phase represents a major Year 2000 business continuity planning

project activity or segment.

Education initiated contingency planning activities in February 1998.

According to department officials, Education is committed to developing

business continuity and contingency plans for each mission-critical

business process and supporting systems. As part of this commitment,

Education recently appointed a senior executive to manage the

development and testing of continuity and contingency plans for student

financial aid operations. The department expects to complete these plans

by March 31, 1999.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education’s endeavor to

make its programs and supporting systems Year 2000 compliant is of

urgent priority. Should critical student financial aid systems not be Year

2000 compliant in time, Education’s ability to control the award process

could be compromised, with cascading effects reaching schools, students,

guaranty agencies, and lenders.

While the department has made progress in preparing its systems for the

year 2000, initial delays have left it with significant risks—risks that must

be effectively managed.

13GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, August 1998.

Page 14 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at

this time.

Page 15 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Severity of Problem Calls for Strong

Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-278, September 3,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships

Needed to Reduce Likelihood of Adverse Impact (GAO/T-AIMD-98-277,

September 2, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships

Needed to Mitigate Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-98-276, September 1, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State Department Needs To Make

Fundamental Improvements To Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-162,

August 28, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing: EFT 99 Is Not Expected to Affect Year 2000

Remediation Efforts (GAO/AIMD-98-272R, August 28, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Avoiding Major Disruptions Will Require

Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-267, August 19,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed

to Address Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-266, August 17, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed

to Mitigate Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-262, August 13, 1998).

FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and

Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, August 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency

Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, August 1998).

Internal Revenue Service: Impact of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act

on Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/GGD-98-158R, August 4, 1998).

Social Security Administration: Subcommittee Questions Concerning

Information Technology Challenges Facing the Commissioner

(GAO/AIMD-98-235R, July 10, 1998).

Page 16 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed on Electronic Data

Exchanges (GAO/AIMD-98-124, July 1, 1998).

Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations

at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Exposure

Draft, June 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting

Federal Agencies (GAO/T-AIMD-98-218, June 22, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Telecommunications Readiness Critical, Yet

Overall Status Largely Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-98-212, June 16, 1998).

GAO Views on Year 2000 Testing Metrics (GAO/AIMD-98-217R, June 16, 1998).

IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Business Continuity Planning Needed for Potential

Year 2000 System Failures (GAO/GGD-98-138, June 15, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address Slow

Pace of Federal Progress (GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998).

Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000

Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in

Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted (GAO/T-AIMD-98-167,

May 14, 1998).

Securities Pricing: Actions Needed for Conversion to Decimals

(GAO/T-GGD-98-121, May 8, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social

Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7, 1998).

IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7, 1998).

Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System

Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May 1,

1998).

Page 17 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption Calls for

Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April 30, 1998).

Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD

Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, April 30, 1998).

Department of the Interior: Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk of

Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, April 22, 1998).

Tax Administration: IRS’ Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal Year

1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, March 31, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid

Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, March 24, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure

Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-116,

March 24, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Office of Thrift Supervision’s Efforts to

Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102,

March 18, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective

Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, March 18, 1998).

Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s

Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, March 18, 1998).

SEC Year 2000 Report: Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed

Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, March 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Readiness: NRC’s Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear

Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, March 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s

Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-73,

February 10, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems

Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, February 4, 1998).

Page 18 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases

Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, January 30, 1998).

Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight

(GAO/AIMD-98-35, January 16, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed to Address Credit Union

Systems’ Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, January 7, 1998).

Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems: Some Progress Made In

Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, But Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-31R,

November 7, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: National Credit Union Administration’s

Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, October 22, 1997).

Social Security Administration: Significant Progress Made in Year 2000

Effort, But Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, October 22, 1997).

Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000

Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, October 21, 1997).

Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 Issues

(GAO/AIMD-97-149, September 26, 1997).

Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Action Underway Yet Much Work

Remains To Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, September 25,

1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Success Depends Upon Strong Management

and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, September 25, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14,

September 1997).

Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress

(GAO/AIMD-97-120R, August 19, 1997).

Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for

Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, August 13, 1997).

Page 19 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000

Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997).

Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000

Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, August 11, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Time Is Running Out for Federal Agencies to

Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997).

Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Uninterrupted Delivery of Benefits

Depends on Timely Correction of Year-2000 Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-97-114,

June 26, 1997).

Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risks of VBA’s Year-2000 Efforts

(GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997).

Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting Critical

Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16, 1997).

Medicare Transaction System: Serious Managerial and Technical

Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential

Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52,

February 27, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Today Needed To Prevent

Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51, February 24,

1997).

High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9,

February 1997).

(511230) Page 20 GAO/T-AIMD-98-302
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100