On Thursday, the Comptroller General of the United States Gene Dodaro, head of GAO, testified about the unique challenges women face saving for retirement. Among those challenges, he noted that women have longer life spans, lower lifetime earnings, and that they are more likely to be primary caregivers, which can limit them from maintaining paid employment. To watch the testimony, click here.
Today’s WatchBlog explores our portfolio of work on women’s retirement issues, including our findings from recent interviews with groups of older women.
Also, check out our new video where you can hear from women, in their own words, discuss their concerns about saving for retirement.
For many, the presence of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel screening passengers can bring a sense of security that nefarious actors won’t get past the airport’s checkpoints. But have you ever wondered how you are protected if the screeners or other airport workers are the nefarious actors? Many of these workers have access within restricted areas of the airport, would know details of the airport’s security procedures, and could exploit vulnerabilities to engage in illicit activities like smuggling illegal goods.
In today’s WatchBlog, we explore our recent work on the TSA Insider Threat Program that aims to deter, detect, and mitigate insider threats at the nation’s approximately 430 TSA-regulated airports.
How does TSA secure so many airports from insider threats?
To ensure the security of airports that it regulates, TSA collaborates with airport management, airlines, law enforcement, and other entities to implement security programs. Although these programs vary across airports, all are designed to mitigate threats to aviation security, including preventing TSA and other airport workers from causing harm—intentional or otherwise. Such harm could take the form of a screener who willfully allows a bag of drugs through the X-ray machine; an aircraft mechanic who sabotages passenger safety equipment; or an airport worker who carries a bag of firearms through a restricted-access door to a passenger. TSA is on the lookout for all of them.
There are approximately 1.8 million airport workers across the U.S. who are monitored by security measures approved by or carried out by TSA, such as:
vetting prospective employees,
restricting access to sensitive areas by using badge readers and biometric sensors,
randomly searching workers, and other measures highlighted in the figure below.
Figure: Examples of Security Procedures and Technologies Used by TSA or Other Aviation Stakeholders to Help Mitigate Insider Threats at TSA-Regulated Airports
Is there anything new with TSA’s insider threat programs?
In 2018, TSA updated their efforts to mitigate insider threats, including analyzing social media accounts to help “vet” select prospective employees applying for a position with access within restricted areas of an airport.
In fact, our analysis showed that the management at many airports are taking additional measures beyond TSA requirements to improve security. For example, to prevent a second worker from entering a restricted area by “piggybacking” behind another worker who swiped his badge, one airport we visited installed sensor towers (shown below) to detect if more than one person crosses the threshold.
Figure: Access Control Technologies at an Access Point to a Secured Area of an Airport
These efforts to keep our airports secure require coordination across multiple offices and committees within TSA. This makes it challenging for the agency to synchronize and integrate activities across offices. TSA would benefit from a strategic plan or roadmap for the Insider Threat Program. We recommended that TSA develop such a plan, as well as identify ways to measure the program’s progress in detecting and deterring insider threats.
To learn more about our recommendations to improve TSA’s Insider Threat Program, check out our report.
Questions on the content of this post? Contact Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov
Today’s WatchBlog looks at our third report on the implementation of the CARES Act and other pandemic relief measures. The report outlines the many effective steps the Administration and the Congress have taken to address issues, and identifies further steps to improve the nation’s response in these areas:
the medical supply chain
vaccines and therapeutics
federal assistance to states and localities
Read on to learn more about what we recommended. You can also listen to our podcast featuring GAO directors who have helped lead our review of the federal response to the pandemic.
The Medical Supply Chain
Shortages of personal protective equipment and testing supplies have happened because some supplies are not made in the U.S. and global demand for these supplies is high. We made recommendations to help the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) work together to continue making progress to stabilize the supply chain. Specifically, agencies should document plans for supply functions transitioning from federal partners to HHS; further develop and communicate about specific actions to mitigate supply shortages; and help state partners better track and plan supply requests.
Vaccine Distribution Plan
On September 16, HHS and the Department of Defense (DOD) provided us with documents showing their plan for distributing and administering a COVID-19 vaccine. We are evaluating this plan to make sure it is consistent with best practices for project planning and scheduling, and to ensure it outlines how efforts will be coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities. Having these elements in a plan would help ensure that the public receive access to any vaccine as soon as possible.
COVID-19 Data Collection
We have identified a need to collect reliable data that can drive decision-making. Specifically, better data is needed on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. We made recommendations on reporting race and ethnicity information for cases and hospitalizations to further explore potential disparities. We also found that HHS’s data on COVID-19 in nursing homes don’t capture the early months of the pandemic. HHS, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the CDC, should develop a strategy to capture more complete data on COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes retroactively back to January 1, 2020.
Economic Impact Payments
The IRS has issued economic impact payments to eligible individuals for whom IRS has the necessary information to do so; but not everyone who was eligible received a payment or the correct amount. IRS took several actions to address challenges we reported on in June, including a policy change that should allow some eligible recipients to receive supplemental payments for qualifying children sooner than expected. However, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS don’t have up-to-date information on how many eligible recipients haven’t yet received their payments. This could hinder outreach efforts and place potentially millions of people at risk of missing their payments. We recommended that Treasury, in coordination with IRS, update and refine the estimate of eligible recipients to help target outreach and communications efforts.
Federal Assistance for States and Localities
The Coronavirus Relief Fund is the largest program established in the 4 COVID-19 relief laws that provides aid for state, local, territory, and tribal governments. Audits of entities that receive funds from programs like this are critical to safeguarding those funds. Additional audit guidance is needed for COVID-19-related programs. Supplemental information on auditing such programs is expected this fall, but further delays in issuing this guidance could undermine auditors’ ability to issue consistent and timely reports. We recommended that the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with Treasury, issue this audit guidance as soon as possible, as many audit efforts are under way.
Guidance for K-12 Schools
State and local school district officials faced tough decisions when deciding whether to reopen schools in their communities this fall, and when planning on how best to ensure students’ safety. These officials relied on and continue to look for guidance and recommendations from federal, state and local public health officials when making those decisions. Portions of CDC’s guidance on reopening K-12 schools are inconsistent, and some federal guidance appears misaligned with CDC’s risk-based approach on school operating status. CDC should ensure that its federal guidance on reassessing schools’ operating status is cogent, clear, and internally consistent.
We have identified numerous cybersecurity weaknesses at multiple HHS component agencies—including CMS, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration—during the last 6 years. These weaknesses can pose risks to patient information, intellectual property, public health data, and intelligence. Based on imminent cybersecurity threats, we urge HHS to expedite implementation of our prior recommendations regarding cybersecurity weaknesses at its component agencies.
How can you report suspected fraud to GAO?
It can be challenging to identify where to report your concerns when you have an allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse. But you can report any of your concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic or the CARES Act to GAO’s FraudNet.
Use any of these 3 methods for reporting your concerns to FraudNet:
Due to the coronavirus pandemic and recommendations to practice social distancing, FraudNet staff are working remotely. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your concern online so we may provide a more timely response and continue to serve the public.
Questions on the content of this post? Contact Nikki Clowers at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“Internet of Things” (IoT) generally refers to everyday devices that you can find around your house—such as thermostats, smart speakers, or refrigerators—that now connect to a network or the Internet. But, the federal government is also using this technology for a variety of purposes.
Today’s WatchBlog features a new report issued this week and highlights our new video on how one federal agency IoT technology.
What is the Internet of Things?
The Internet of Things includes devices or “things” that connect with other devices throughout buildings, vehicles, transportation infrastructure, or homes. Devices that use IoT technology consist of 3 primary components—hardware (like sensors and processors), network connectivity (wireless devices that use Bluetooth or WiFi), and software (programs within hardware) that interact to complete tasks. For example, IoT technologies might allow you to track your workout rigor through a watch, sense visitors approaching your home from your doorbell, or order groceries online through voice-activated controllers in your home. For a business, for example those that deliver goods and services, it can be used to track delivery or vehicles progress toward your home. In general, the use of these IoT devices is growing fast—some experts forecast that 43 billion devices will be in use worldwide by 2023.
The Federal Government and the Internet of Things:
While homes and businesses see a growing use of IoT technologies, the federal government is another user of these devices. In a new report, we surveyed federal agencies to ask how they were using IoT technology. We received responses from 90 of 115 agencies surveyed. Most often, agencies told us that they use IoT tech to:
Control or monitor equipment or systems,
Control access to devices or facilities, or
Track physical assets such as fleet vehicles.
In 2019, the St. Lawrence Seaway, which allows ships to travel from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean, added IoT technology to its locks. IoT technology is used in the mooring systems that are part of the locks. Specifically, the mooring system uses sensors and a vacuum system to control and monitor ships as they navigate the U.S. controlled-locks in the St. Lawrence Seaway. This video explains more:
Neil Young once sang that he’d been a miner for a heart of gold. If he was on federal land, he may or may not have had to pay a royalty on any hardrock minerals he found, like copper, molybdenum, or, of course, gold. The related laws are a bit complex—but we’ve got Neil covered.
Today’s WatchBlog looks at our report on mining on federal lands.
A gold mine on federal lands in Nevada
Rockin’ In the Free World
There are 2 types of federal lands: acquired lands and public domain lands.
Acquired lands are those granted or sold to the United States by a state or citizen
Public domain lands usually were never owned by a state or private citizen and make up about 90% of all federal lands
Different statutes and systems govern the management of solid minerals on each type of federal lands.
On acquired lands, hardrock mining is subject to federal laws that allow the federal government to maintain title to the land but establish terms for using it, including royalties to be paid to the federal government. This is called a leasing system. The Bureau of Land Management generally uses it to authorize mining on acquired federal lands.
On public domain lands, hardrock mining is generally subject to the General Mining Act of 1872, which allows people to locate minerals and stake a claim to obtain the exclusive right to extract them without paying a federal royalty. This is called a location system. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service each maintain separate programs to evaluate and approve location system operations on lands they manage.
Besides hardrock mining, non-energy minerals (like sodium and phosphate) and coal can be mined on federal lands. This generally takes place under leasing systems. Operations under both location and leasing systems for both hardrock and non-energy minerals are subject to other environmental and natural resource management laws.
So, depending on the type of federal land and what kind of mineral is produced, mine operators may or may not be required to pay the government a royalty.
You Never Call
Our report dug deep into the data on mining on federal lands. We looked at hardrock, non-energy mineral, and coal mining there. We found that there are 872 authorized mining operations on about 1.3 million acres of federal land as of September 2018—most of which aren’t subject to royalties.
Mine operators paid about $550 million in royalties in FY 2018. But federal agencies don’t know exactly how productive hardrock mines on public domain lands are because these agencies generally don’t collect data from mine operators that don’t have to pay royalties.
To learn more about mining on federal lands, check out our report on the topic. To unearth still more on the topic, check out the data supplement.
Questions on the content of this post? Contact Anne-Marie Fennell at email@example.com.
Partnerships between federal and local entities are key to achieving national goals for education, health care, transportation, and homeland security, as well as responding to emergencies such as hurricanes or—more recently— the coronavirus pandemic.
Today’s WatchBlog looks at our recent report on how 24 of the largest federal agencies handled their intergovernmental affairs activities. Specifically, we identified their key responsibilities and activities, as well as their interactions with state and local governments.
Effective partnerships between federal agencies and state and local governments are critical for delivering economic relief and health care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to this urgent challenge involves all levels of government—federal, state, local, tribal, and territories—and multiple programs and funding sources. For example, in an unprecedented step to respond to COVID-19, the federal government provided an estimated $335 billion in funds to agencies for assisting states, localities, territories, and tribes in their responses to the pandemic.
Outside of the response to the coronavirus pandemic, in 2019, the federal government awarded about $721 billion in grants to state and local governments for a wide range of activities.
How do federal agencies interact with state and local governments?
Because federal policy decisions often affect and require action from state and local governments, an executive order from 1999 provides a set of principles and criteria that executive agencies and departments must follow when formulating and implementing policies that affect state and local governments. This requires that each federal agency designate an official to implement the order. In our recent review, we found that 14 out of 24 selected agencies reported having such an official; 10 agencies did not report having one.
Our review found that most federal agencies established agency-wide intergovernmental affairs offices to share information and coordinate activities in their work with state and local counterparts, including assisting with identifying and applying for federal grants, providing information on regulations, and conducting outreach.
Our review also found that these offices varied in their approach to structuring their intergovernmental affairs operations. Of the 20 agencies with agency-wide intergovernmental affairs offices, half focused on intergovernmental affairs as their sole function while the other half included multiple functions, such as congressional or legislative affairs.
During our review, we met with state and local associations about their interactions with federal agencies’ intergovernmental affairs offices. While representatives from these associations reported interacting with federal agencies’ intergovernmental affairs offices for outreach and information-sharing purposes, they also said they sometimes faced challenges, such as:
difficulty identifying intergovernmental affairs contacts in federal agencies,
limited federal agency knowledge of state and local governments, and
inconsistent federal agency approaches to consultation on proposed regulations.
How could federal interactions with state and local governments be strengthened?
We recommended that the Office of Management and Budget—which issued guidance to federal agencies on implementing the executive order—ensure that federal agencies meet the order’s requirements, especially by designating a federalism official. Doing so could contribute to meaningful and timely federal consultation with state and local governments.
Want to learn more about what we found? Be sure to check out the full report.
Questions on the content of this post? Contact Michelle Sager at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Nonfinancial information about how companies operate can be an indicator of their long-term financial performance. This information includes how companies address environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. ESG factors include things like climate change impacts and cybersecurity programs that may affect a company’s bottom line and thus, its stock price. The current COVID-19 global pandemic has further highlighted the importance of ESG factors, such as workplace safety and employee retention.
In today’s WatchBlog, we explore GAO’s recent work, which describes how investors use ESG disclosures and the kind of information public companies disclose on these topics.
How do investors use ESG information?
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies to publicly disclose, among other things, certain financial information and potential risks to investors. But investors have been increasingly asking companies for more information on ESG factors. The use of ESG factors has emerged as a way for investors to understand potential risks and opportunities that may not be included in financial analysis. Most investors that we interviewed agreed that ESG factors can affect a company’s long-term financial performance. These investors said they use ESG information to monitor companies’ management of risks, inform their vote at shareholder meetings, or make stock purchasing decisions. Most investors said they are looking for more ESG information from companies in their disclosures.
What kind of ESG information do public companies disclose?
We reviewed documents for 32 public companies and identified disclosures across many ESG topics. But we also found gaps and inconsistencies that could limit their usefulness to investors. Of the ESG topics we reviewed, companies most often reported about topics such as board accountability, workforce diversity, and climate change, and the least on human rights. SEC requires companies to report certain governance information, which may help explain why board accountability topics were the most reported.
As the figure below shows, most companies provided ESG information that was specific to the company in their disclosures, in topic areas like board selection and governance. But in other areas, such as use and protection of consumer data, many companies shared either general information (not company-specific) or no information at all. For example, most companies provided only generic information when describing obstacles that might limit the company’s ability to hire the talent it needs.
Figure: The Four ESG Disclosure Topics We Reviewed with the Most and Least Company-Specific Disclosures, Generally Covering Data from 2018
Note: We reviewed 32 companies’ 10-Ks, proxy statements, annual reports, and voluntary sustainability reports (generally with data from 2018, and some with data from 2017 and 2019).
Additionally, some companies used different units of measure or calculation methods. For example, companies used different base years when calculating their reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, airline companies we reviewed reported emission reductions with base years ranging from 1990 to 2017. This can make it hard for investors to compare ESG information across companies.
To learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of policy options to improve ESG disclosures, check out our recent report.
Questions on the content of this post? Contact Michael Clements at email@example.com.
Federal agencies increasingly use internet-based (cloud) services to fulfill their missions. However, those services pose cybersecurity risks when agencies don’t effectively implement related security controls.
The 2011 Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (or FedRAMP) aims to standardize the approach for federal use of cloud services. The FedRAMP program establishes security requirements and guidelines that are intended to help secure cloud computing environments used by agencies, helping protect agencies’ data, which could include information used to support their missions such as protecting public health.
Today’s WatchBlog looks at the FedRAMP policies and how agencies’ compliance with policies are monitored.
Office of Management and Budget monitoring lags
OMB requires agencies to use the program, but we found that it didn’t effectively monitor agencies’ compliance. This makes it harder to ensure that cloud services agencies are meeting federal security requirements.
From the customer perspective, officials from almost half of the 24 federal agencies we surveyed said FedRAMP had improved their data security. Agencies also reported that the program’s process for monitoring the status of security controls over cloud services was limited. Specifically, continuous monitoring should be automated to ensure that agencies are getting real-time information on the security status of the services they use. Currently, agencies have to gather and assess much of these data manually.
The Homeland Security Information Network is one example of a federal system using cloud services.
We recommended enhancing OMB oversight and improving the FedRAMP administrator’s guidance and monitoring. We also made specific recommendations to the FedRAMP administrator and the agencies in our review to help them improve cloud security and more.
DOD’s repair depots ensure that critical weapon systems like aircraft, submarines, and tanks are ready for military operations. But if these depots can’t complete maintenance on time, DOD’s weapon systems can’t be used for operations and training.
So, how are DOD’s maintenance depots performing, when it comes to completing maintenance on time?
Today’s WatchBlog takes a look.
The Navy’s struggles
The Navy is struggling to complete maintenance on time for its fixed-wing aircraft, aircraft carriers, and submarines.
For example,Navy depots were overall late completing select fixed-wing aircraft maintenance every year between FYs 2014-2019, completing maintenance on time about 50 percent of the time. Navy aircraft have spent over 62,000 more days in maintenance than expected since FY 2014. We recommended (among other things) that the Navy identify more accurate turn-around target times for aircraft maintenance.
Additionally, the Navy’s 4 shipyards completed maintenance on time for aircraft carriers and submarines just 25% of the time from FYs 2015-2019. The two main causes for the delays included unplanned work and issues with shipyard workforce performance and capacity, which resulted in the Navy relying on excessive use of overtime to attempt to address these issues. We recommended that the Navy address workforce requirements to avoid the excessive use of overtime. The photos below show a Navy F/A-18 and a submarine undergoing depot maintenance.
Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps depots
The Air Force, Army and Marine Corps have generally met their depot maintenance goals in recent years.
The Army’s depots reported meeting their maintenance goals for about 91% of weapon systems in FYs 2018 and 2019. However, we found that the Army’s metric for meeting maintenance goals could be improved and that the Army experienced many changes to its planned workload. We made 4 recommendations to the Army, including that it could better plan workflow at its depots.
The Marine Corps’ depots also reported that theygenerally met maintenance goals for FYs 2015-2019. However, the Marine Corps metric for meeting maintenance goals doesn’t assess performance against original goals and doesn’t include all of its planned work.
The photos below show Army and Marine Corps weapon systems undergoing depot repair.
While DOD’s depots have struggled to meet repair needs in recent years they have reported benefits from sharing best practices and lessons learned with each other. For example, one depot shared an improvement for a type of aircraft gearbox that reduced repair time from 95 weeks to 4 weeks.
DOD could do more to help depots share information—like creating a comprehensive list of depot working groups.
The growing homelessness crisis in the U.S. could be worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. While data on the impact COVID-19 is having on homelessness are not yet available, Congress has already made efforts mitigate its effects through passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). This effort included $4 billion for homelessness prevention and assistance.
Today’s WatchBlog considers some of the factors that may increase homelessness during the pandemic. It also draws from our recent report on factors associated with changes in the size of the homeless population in the United States.
In 2019, the estimated size of the homeless population grew to about 568,000—a 3% increase from the prior year, and the third consecutive year of growth.
To understand recent changes in the estimated size of the homeless population, we developed an economic model that found that rising rental prices were associated with increases in homelessness. The figure below shows estimated homelessness rates and median household rent, which includes actual rent paid by renters for occupied units with shared living situations rather than total rent for the entire unit. Therefore some localities, such as New York City, may appear to have lower rent than expected.
Specifically, we found that a $100 increase in median rent was associated with a 9% increase in the estimated homelessness rate—even after accounting for a variety of other relevant factors, such as wages, unemployment rate, and poverty, as well as other demographic and economic characteristics. While the pandemic’s effect on rental prices is not yet clear, housing will likely remain unaffordable for some, particularly those in lower-income households.
Figure: Estimated Homelessness Rates and Median Household Rent in the 20 Communities with the Largest Homeless Counts in 2018
Unemployment and job loss
Job loss is also a common cause of homelessness, according to some of the community representatives we interviewed. For example, losing a job may force someone to take work for lower pay, which could cause them to fall behind on rent, and ultimately lead to eviction. Unemployment rates increased sharply during the coronavirus recession, raising concerns that an increase in the size of the homeless population could potentially follow.
Evictions may contribute to homelessness. The CARES Act temporarily halted eviction filings for some tenants, but the moratorium did not cover all renters. Some state and local governments also established temporary moratoriums on evictions. However, many of these measures have already expired or are set to expire soon, and it is unclear how many renters will be able to stay in their homes once eviction filings resume.
Poverty, mental health challenges, incarceration, and domestic violence also appear to be related to homelessness. In addition, our report recommended that the Department of Housing and Urban Development take steps to improve its data on homelessness.