Inspectors General: Views on Semiannual Reporting (Letter Report,
08/25/1999, GAO/AIMD-99-203).
The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires each Inspector General to
issue semiannual reports summarizing the results of his or her work and
specifies the types of information that the reports are to contain. The
Act also requires the Inspector General to give the report to the agency
head, who sends the report, with management's response, to the
appropriate congressional committees. This report (1) provides
information on the composition of the semiannual reports and (2)
presents the views of a range of individuals--inspectors general, agency
managers, and congressional staff--on the usefulness of the current
reports and what modifications, if any, should be made to the current
semiannual reporting requirements.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-99-203
TITLE: Inspectors General: Views on Semiannual Reporting
DATE: 08/25/1999
SUBJECT: Reporting requirements
Surveys
Information resources management
Computer security
Congressional/executive relations
Inspectors general
Internal controls
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to Congressional Requesters August 1999 INSPECTORS GENERAL
Views on Semiannual Reporting GAO/AIMD-99-203 United States
General Accounting Office
Accounting and Information Washington, D.C. 20548
Management Division B-282804
Letter August 25, 1999 The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman Committee
on Government Reform House of Representatives The Honorable
Stephen Horn Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives This report responds to your request that we
review the semiannual reporting requirements contained in the
Inspector General (IG) Act of 1978, as amended. The IG Act
requires each Inspector General to issue semiannual reports
summarizing the results of his or her work and identifies the type
of information that the reports are to contain. The IG Act also
requires the IG to submit the report to the agency head who
transmits the report, with management's response, to the
appropriate congressional committees or subcommittees. Our review
included 27 IGs who are appointed by the President with Senate
confirmation.1 Our review also included the 30 IGs at designated
federal entities (DFE) who are appointed by the agency head.2
Appendix I lists the presidentially appointed IGs and appendix II
lists the DFE IGs included in our review. 1The IG Act identifies
26 of the 27 IGs. Public Law 101-193 established an IG for the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who is appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, but is not subject to the
IG Act. Public Law 101-193 contains semiannual reporting
requirements similar to those in the IG Act. The Office of the IG
for the CIA did not provide us copies of its semiannual reports,
but did participate in other parts of our review. In addition,
Public Law 105-206 amended the IG Act in 1998 to establish an IG
for Tax Administration within the Department of the Treasury. The
Senate confirmed the IG in April 1999. At the time of our review,
the IG had not issued a semiannual report and, therefore, was not
included in this report. 2Public Law 100-504 separately created an
IG for the Government Printing Office (GPO). For purposes of this
report, we included GPO in the term "designated federal entity"
because the GPO IG has similar duties and responsibilities as the
29 DFE IGs. Letter Page 1
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Our objectives
were to obtain (1) information on the composition of the
semiannual reports and (2) the views of a range of individuals-
IGs, agency managers, and congressional staff-on the usefulness of
the current reports and what modifications, if any, should be made
to the current semiannual reporting requirements. To accomplish
our first objective, we reviewed the September 30, 1997, and March
31, 1998, semiannual reports for 26 of the 27 presidentially
appointed IGs and the 30 DFE IGs-a total of 112 reports. These
were the two most recent semiannual reports available at the time
we initiated our review. We did not independently verify the
information-for example, dollar savings-contained in the
semiannual reports. To obtain views on semiannual reporting, we
(1) held focus groups with the IG or his or her designee and
agency managers and (2) obtained the views of congressional staff
through the use of a questionnaire. In planning for the focus
groups, we requested that each IG and a representative of each
agency participate. The agency managers who attended the focus
groups were in senior-level positions within their agencies. Many
of the attendees were their agency's Chief Financial Officer,
while others served as their agency's Deputy Director for
Administration, Deputy Executive Director, Controller, and
Director, Office of Resource Management. To identify appropriate
congressional staff, we asked each IG to provide us a list of the
congressional committees, subcommittees, members, and
congressional staff that are provided a copy of the semiannual
report. From this information, we developed a list of
congressional staff to whom the questionnaire was sent. The
congressional staff who responded represented a cross-section of
the Senate and House oversight, appropriations, and authorization
committees. Prior to sending out the questionnaire, it was
pretested and revised, as necessary. Appendix III provides
further details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. We
performed our review from September 1998 through May 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the 57 IGs
included in our review and two officials in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB): the Deputy Director of OMB and the
Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management. The
Acting Controller provided oral comments on behalf of OMB. At the
time we finalized our report, we had received written or oral
comments from all 57 IGs. The written responses that contained
comments on the draft report or provided additional views Letter
Page 2 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
Semiannual Reporting B-282804 on the issue of semiannual reports
are discussed in the "Agency Comment" section and reprinted in
appendix VI. Results in Brief Overall, the semiannual reports
generally addressed the reporting requirements specified in the IG
Act, as amended. Approximately 91 percent of the reports (102 of
112) addressed all 12 of the required areas. Additionally, we
found that the semiannual reports discussed governmentwide issues,
such as information technology, computer security, and the Year
2000 computer problems, to varying degrees. Many of the
semiannual reports by presidentially appointed IGs-38 of 52-
discussed information technology, but far fewer discussed computer
security and the Year 2000 computer problem. In the DFE IG
semiannual reports we reviewed, 26 of the 60 discussed information
technology issues, but relatively few discussed computer security
and the Year 2000 computer problem. Congressional staff, for the
most part, viewed the semiannual reports as being useful. They
noted that the reports were used in preparing for hearings as well
as providing insight into the activities of the IGs and the
agencies. The congressional staff were also generally satisfied
with the current reporting requirements, including the requirement
that the report be issued semiannually. They were of the opinion,
however, that more emphasis needed to be placed on the systemic
issues confronting each agency's management and that agency's
implementation of the IG recommendations. There was a general
consensus among the IGs and agency managers that the semiannual
reports should be streamlined. They generally agreed that the
reports should focus on the significant issues that need to be
brought to the attention of the Congress and agency management.
In this regard, agency managers noted that the current semiannual
reports are not very useful because they encompass all of the work
performed over the past 6 months and it is sometimes difficult to
identify the most significant issues. There was also strong
sentiment in both groups for the issuance of the IG semiannual
report to be annually. However, about half of the DFE IGs wanted
to retain the current semiannual reporting requirement. OMB and
the IGs generally agreed with the contents of our report with some
of the IGs providing additional perspective on semiannual
reporting. Additionally, other IGs provided technical comments on
the report, which have been incorporated, as appropriate. Page 3
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Background As
enacted in 1978, the Inspector General Act of 1978 identified six
specific areas that were to be discussed in each semiannual
report. For example, the semiannual report was to provide a
description of the significant problems in the agency's programs
and operations, a summary of matters referred to prosecutive
authorities and resulting convictions, and a list of each audit
report completed during the reporting period. The semiannual
reports are to be prepared for the periods ending March 31 and
September 30 of each year and are generally transmitted to the
Congress within 60 days of the end of the reporting period.
Although not addressed specifically in the act, the legislative
history of the act clearly sets forth the purpose of the
semiannual reports. For example, House Report 95-584, dated
August 5, 1977, noted that the IG report should describe
significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies in agency
operations and programs disclosed by activities of the offices,
together with recommendations made for corrective action and an
evaluation of the progress made in implementing the
recommendations. In addition, the IG semiannual reports were to
be limited to recommendations that the IG regards as particularly
important, rather than constituting a list of all recommendations
for corrective action on which adequate management progress is not
being made. Additional legislative history noted that the "reports
will ordinarily be transmitted to Congress by the agency head
without alteration or deletion." In addition, the legislative
history pointed out that this requirement was fundamental to the
IG legislation and provides the foundation of the IG's
independence. The Inspector General Act amendments of 1988 changed
the reporting requirements. One of the original reporting
requirements was modified and six requirements were added.
Appendix IV lists the 12 specific areas that are to be covered by
each semiannual report. The modification and additions were made,
according to Senate Report 100-150, because "IGs' semi-annual
reports vary widely in the format and in terms used to describe
the audit resolution process. As a result, it is difficult for
Congress to analyze individual agencies and develop an overall
picture of the Federal Government's progress against waste, fraud
and mismanagement." Additionally, Senate Report 100-150 noted that
the changes in the reporting requirements would require more
uniform and statistically reliable reports from the IGs and
require agency heads to provide additional information on the
progress made in implementing corrective actions. Page 4
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Content of the IG
The following questions and answers discuss the (1) extent to
which the Semiannual Reports 112 semiannual reports address
each of the IG Act's 12 reporting requirements and (2) degree to
which selected governmentwide management issues are addressed. 1.
To what extent did the semiannual reports we reviewed address the
12 specific areas required by the Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended? Overall, the semiannual reports generally addressed
the reporting requirements specified in the IG Act, as amended.
Approximately 91 percent of the reports (102 of 112) addressed all
12 of the required areas. For the presidential IGs, 85 percent, or
44 of the 52 reports, addressed the 12 areas. In the case of the
DFE IGs, 97 percent, or 58 of the 60 reports, addressed the
required areas. The following charts provide an overview of the
extent to which the IG semiannual reports addressed each of the 12
reporting requirements. For reporting purposes, we classified the
reporting requirements into three categories, which are 1.
requirements to identify significant concerns IGs have with agency
operations, 2. requirements to address concerns IGs have with
actions taken by agency management, such as not providing
requested information, and 3. requirements for statistical
tables. In terms of our overall analysis, a "discussed" response
means that the semiannual reports contained some information for a
particular reporting requirement, whereas a "not discussed"
response means that the semiannual report did not contain
information related to the particular reporting requirement. A
"no information to report" response means that the IG indicated
that he or she had no information to report for a particular
reporting requirement. The first category includes the following
five reporting requirements: 1. A description of significant
problems (requirement #1). Page 5
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 2. A description
of the recommendations for corrective action (requirement #2). 3.
A description of any recommendations for which corrective actions
are incomplete (requirement #3). 4. A summarization of matters
referred to prosecutive authorities (requirement #4). 5. A
summarization of significant reports (requirement #7). As shown in
figure 1 (for the presidential IGs) and figure 2 (for the DFE IGs)
their respective semiannual reports generally provided information
for the five reporting requirements. Figure 1: Reporting
Requirements That Provide the Presidential IGs the Opportunity to
Identify Significant Concerns With Agency Operations Number of
reports Note: There are 52 presidential reports. Page 6
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 2:
Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the Opportunity to
Identify Significant Concerns With Agency Operations Number of
reports Note: There are 60 DFE IG reports. Four of the
requirements shown in figures 1 and 2 were part of the original
reporting requirements set forth in the 1978 Act and were aimed at
identifying significant concerns the IG has with agency
operations. The second category of requirements addresses concerns
that the IGs have with actions being taken by agency management.
This category includes the following four reporting requirements:
1. A summary of matters for which the IG determined that there
has been an unreasonable refusal to provide requested information
or assistance (requirement #5). 2. A summarization of each report
issued in previous reporting periods for which no management
decision had been made (requirement #10). 3. A description and
explanation of the reasons for any significant revised management
decision (requirement #11). 4. Information concerning any
significant management decision with which the IG is in
disagreement (requirement #12). Page 7
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 As shown in
figures 3 and 4, the semiannual reports we reviewed frequently
provided a "no information to report" response for these four
reporting requirements. Figure 3: Reporting Requirements That
Provide the Presidential IGs the Opportunity to Identify Concerns
With Actions Taken by Agency Management Number of reports Note:
There are 52 presidential reports. Page 8
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 4:
Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the Opportunity to
Identify Concerns With Actions Taken by Agency Management Number
of reports Note: There are 60 DFE reports. The third category of
current reporting requirements involves the statistical tables.
These three requirements (6, 8, and 9) require that monetary
savings, if applicable, that result from the work performed by the
IGs be identified. For requirement 6, the IGs are to prepare an
overall table showing the total dollar value of (1) questioned
costs 3 and (2) recommendations that funds be put to better use 4
for all audit reports issued during the reporting period.
Further, these reports are to be subdivided by subject matter.
The IG Act also requires that the semiannual report contain
separate tables on questioned costs (requirement 8) and funds to
be put to better use (requirement 9).5 These requirements were
3House Conference Report 100-1020 defines questioned costs to mean
those costs questioned by the IG because of (1) an alleged
violation of a provision of law, regulation, contract, grant,
cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing
the expenditure of funds, (2) a finding that, at the time of the
audit, such cost is not supported by adequate documentation, or
(3) a finding that the expenditure of funds for the intended
purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable. 4Recommendations that
funds be put to better use refers to recommendations made by the
IG that funds could be used more efficiently if agency management
"took actions to implement and complete the recommendation
including (A) reductions in outlays; (B) deobligation of funds
from programs or operations; (C) withdrawal of interest subsidy
costs on loans or loan guarantees, insurance, or bonds; (D) cost
not incurred by implementing recommended improvements related to
the operations of the establishment, a contractor, or grantee; (E)
avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews of
contract or grant agreements; or (F) any other savings which are
specifically identified." Page 9
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 added to the IG
Act by the 1988 amendments in an attempt to provide the Congress
with more uniform and statistically reliable information on the
federal government's progress against fraud, waste, and abuse. As
shown in figure 5, virtually all of the presidential IG semiannual
reports contained dollar amounts for the three reporting
requirements related to the statistical tables. Figure 5: Summary
of Presidential IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table
Requirements Number of reports Note: There are 52 presidential IG
reports. The information reported by the DFE IGs was different.
As shown in figure 6, less than half of the DFE IG reports
contained dollar amounts, with the majority reporting zeros in the
tables or stating that the information was not applicable. 5Each
table is to show the total number of audit reports and the total
dollar value for audit reports (1) for which no management
decision had been made by the commencement of the reporting
period, (2) which were issued during the reporting period, (3) for
which a management decision had been made during the reporting
period, and (4) for which no management decision had been made by
the end of the reporting period. Page 10
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 6:
Summary of DFE IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table
Requirements Number of reports Note: There are 60 DFE IG reports.
2. Besides the reporting requirements specified in the IG Act,
did the IG semiannual reports discuss governmentwide issues such
as the results of financial statement audits, information
technology, the Year 2000 computer problem,6 computer security,
and their agency's implementation of the Results Act?7 The IG
semiannual reports discussed these governmentwide issues to
varying degrees. As shown in figure 7, about 73 percent of the
presidential IG semiannual reports (38 of 52) discussed the IGs'
efforts in the area of information technology. The Year 2000
problem and computer security were discussed to a lesser extent.
Eleven of the 52 reports discussed 6The Year 2000 computer problem
involves the inability of computer programs at the Year 2000 to
interpret the correct century from a recorded or calculated date
having only two digits to indicate the year. 7The Results Act-
officially known as the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993-requires that each agency covered by the act develop a
strategic plan that contains the following elements: (1) a
comprehensive mission statement, (2) general goals and objectives
for all major functions and operations, (3) approaches or
strategies and the resources needed to achieve the goals and
objectives, (4) a description of the relationship between the
goals and objectives and the annual performance goals, (5) an
identification of key factors external to the agency beyond its
control that could significantly affect the achievement of the
goals, and (6) a description of how past program evaluations were
used to establish revised goals and a schedule for future program
evaluations. Page 11
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 computer
security, whereas the Year 2000 problem was discussed in 19 of the
52 reports. Figure 7: Number of Presidential IG Reports That
Discuss Information on Governmentwide Issues Number of reports
Note: There are 52 presidential reports. As shown in figure 8,
for the DFE IGs, almost half of the semiannual reports (26 of 60)
discussed information technology issues. Relatively few reports
discussed computer security (3 of 60) and the Year 2000 computer
problem (7 of 60). Page 12
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 8: Number
of DFE IG Reports That Discuss Information on Governmentwide
Issues Number of reports Note: There are 60 DFE IG reports. As
shown in figure 9, 25 of the presidential IGs discussed the
results of their respective agency's financial statement audits
and 16 discussed the Results Act in at least one of the two
semiannual reports we reviewed for each IG. Figure 9: Number of
Presidential IGs That Discuss Financial Statement Audits and the
Results Act Number of IGs Note: Reporting related to the
financial statement audits and the Results Act occurs annually.
Therefore, if these two areas were discussed in either of the two
semiannual reports reviewed for each IG, we considered them as
being addressed. As a result, the information presented for the
financial statement audits and Results Act is based upon the
number of IGs. We reviewed the semiannual reports for 26
presidential IGs. Page 13
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Not all
designated federal entities are required to have financial
statement audits. We found that 16 of the 30 entities had
financial statement audits and, as shown in figure 10, 11 of the
DFE IGs included a discussion of the results within one of the two
semiannual reports. In addition, 23 of the 30 DFE IGs' respective
agencies are required to comply with the Results Act and 9 of the
23 DFE IGs discussed the Results Act within one of the two
semiannual reports we reviewed from each IG. Figure 10: Number of
DFE IGs That Discuss Financial Statement Audits and the Results
Act Number of IGs Note: Reporting related to the financial
statement audits and the Results Act occurs annually. Therefore,
if these two areas were discussed in either of the two semiannual
reports reviewed, we considered them as being addressed. As a
result, the information presented for the financial statement
audits and Results Act is based upon the number of IGs-there are
30 DFE IGs. Views of Congressional We developed and administered
a questionnaire to obtain the views of the Staff and Agency
congressional staff on the usefulness of the semiannual reports.
We obtained the views of agency managers through focus groups. In
total, we Managers on the obtained the views of
47 congressional staff and 29 agency managers. Usefulness of IG
Semiannual Reports 3. Do congressional staff and
agency managers find the information contained in the IGs
semiannual reports to be useful? From an overall perspective, most
of the congressional staff responding to our questionnaire
indicated that the semiannual reports were useful. On Page 14
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 the other hand,
19 of the 29 agency managers told us that the semiannual reports
were not useful to them. A primary reason cited was that the
semiannual reports do not contain any new information. These two
groups' respective views are discussed in more detail below. Views
of Congressional Staff In response to the questionnaire, 36 of the
47 congressional staff indicated that the usefulness of the
semiannual reports ranged from "moderate" to "a very great
extent." The staff indicated that they used the reports primarily
to stay apprised of what was occurring in the agency (42 of 47)
and within the IG's office (38 of 47). Congressional staff also
noted that the semiannual reports were beneficial in preparing for
hearings (26 of 47) and as a reference document (26 of 47). In
their comments, congressional staff indicated that the reports
were used to generate ideas for hearings and legislation, view
issues from a multiagency perspective, and identify Results Act
and Year 2000 compliance. Views of Agency
Agency managers were of the opinion that the semiannual reports
did not Management provide any new
information or perspectives and were too detailed to be of use to
management. They noted that the semiannual reports were a recap
of the previously issued reports that had been commented upon by
agency management. Their view was that, as a result, it was
sometimes difficult to determine which were the most significant
issues that should be the focus of management's attention.
Additionally, some of the managers noted that the semiannual
reports are not very useful in a small agency where only a few
reports are issued in a 6-month period. Modifications to the
We also obtained the views of the congressional staff, IGs, and
agency Current Reporting managers on (1) what
modifications, if any, should be made to the current semiannual
reporting requirements and (2) how the semiannual reports
Requirements could be improved. 4. What
modifications, if any, did the congressional staff, IGs, and
agency managers believe should be made to the current reporting
requirements? All three groups indicated a general satisfaction
with most of the current semiannual reporting requirements, except
for the requirements related to the statistical tables. Appendix
V provides a summary of each group's Page 15
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 opinion in regard
to each of the 12 current reporting requirements, including
suggested modifications. 5. What suggestions did congressional
staff, IGs, and agency managers have for improving semiannual
reports? From an overall perspective, the congressional staff,
IGs, and agency managers agreed that the primary purpose of
semiannual reporting is to inform the Congress of the various
problems confronting each agency. There was also general agreement
that not all issues need to be discussed in the semiannual report,
but rather that the semiannual report should focus on significant
issues that the Congress and agency management need to address.
Each group did suggest ways in which the semiannual reports could
be improved. The views of each group are discussed in more detail
below. The views presented below are not all inclusive, but rather
represent the most common views that were provided by each group.
Views of the Congressional Although the congressional staff found
the current reports to be useful and Staff
were in favor of the current reporting requirements, they offered
various suggestions as to how they think the reports could be made
more useful. For instance, 26 of the 47 staff responding to the
questionnaire were of the opinion that additional emphasis should
be placed on the "significant issues" facing agency management,
such as the high-risk areas and the top 10 management issues.
Second, 20 congressional staff noted that the IG reports should
provide additional insight into the actions being taken by agency
management to implement the recommendations made by the IG.
Additionally, 16 staff noted that the IG reports should discuss
the systemic problems agency management must resolve. The majority
of the congressional staff (30 of 47) favored retaining the
current semiannual reporting requirement. Only six congressional
staff favored annual IG reporting. Views of the IGs
Among the IG community, there was a general consensus that the
report should be more streamlined. The IG focus groups made the
following suggestions. * Twenty-nine IGs suggested that the report
contain an executive summary that would highlight the results of
the IG's work. Page 16 GAO/AIMD-
99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 * Ten IGs suggested that
the report provide an overview of the agency, discuss the IG's
resources, and summarize the activities of the IG. These
particular IGs were of the opinion that the report needs to be
meaningful, brief, and "not padded." * The report should be
limited to 20 pages and discuss the five most important issues
within the agency. Along the same line, others suggested that the
report should discuss the top 10 management issues affecting the
agency. These two comments were supported by 10 IGs. * About two
thirds of the presidential IGs (17 of 24) were in favor of the
report being issued annually rather than semiannually. However,
about half of the DFE IGs (11 of 24) favored continuing with the
current semiannual reporting requirement. These IGs were of the
opinion that semiannual reporting to the Congress encourages
agency management to act upon the IG's recommendations in a timely
manner. There was also some support among the IGs-presidential and
DFE-that the semiannual report should relate the activities of the
IG to their respective agency's strategic plan and performance
plan to focus the IG on the important issues of the agency. As
previously discussed, these plans must be prepared by most
agencies in order to comply with the Results Act. The IGs were
also of the opinion that their reports should remain distinct from
any other reporting done by the agency. They emphasized that
separate reporting by the IGs was critical in order to maintain
some degree of leverage in having agency management act upon their
recommendations. They were also of the opinion that if the IG's
report were to be combined with a report prepared by the agency
that the IG's report would "get lost." Views of the Agency
Like the IGs, for the most part, agency managers were of the
opinion that Managers the semiannual report should
be streamlined. From an overall perspective, agency managers
noted that the report should focus more on the significant issues
that agency management must resolve. They offered the following
suggestions to improve the usefulness of the semiannual reporting.
* The report should discuss the top 10 management issues, be in
the form of a letter, and include management's response. * Less
significant issues do not need to be included in the semiannual
report to the Congress, but they should continue to be reported to
agency management. The act requires the IG to include significant
issues in the semiannual report to the Congress, but in the view
of agency managers the term "significant" has not been clearly
defined. As Page 17 GAO/AIMD-99-
203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 a result, the agency managers
view the current semiannual report as basically all inclusive of
the work performed by the IG during the 6-month period. * The IG's
report should discuss systemic problems and identify the course of
action that should be followed to resolve the problems. * The IG's
report should discuss the results of the IG's latest peer review.
Under generally accepted government auditing standards, the IGs
are to have an external quality control review every 3 years.
Such reviews are generally performed by an IG in another agency
and are intended to provide reasonable assurance that established
policies and procedures and applicable auditing standards are
being followed. * There was also general consensus among the
agency managers that the report should be issued annually, rather
than semiannually. There was also support among the agency
managers for incorporating the IG's report into the agency's
Accountability Report. The Government Management Reform Act of
1994 authorized OMB to implement a pilot program to streamline and
consolidate certain statutory financial management and performance
reports into a single, annual agency Accountability Report.
However, as discussed above, some of the IGs were opposed to any
type of consolidated reporting, noting that the IG's report could
"get lost" if combined with a report prepared by the agency.
Agency Comments We received oral comments from OMB and oral or
written comments from all 57 IGs. OMB and the IGs generally
agreed with the contents of the report. We have incorporated
their comments as appropriate. We are sending copies of this
report to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Government Reform; Representative Jim Turner,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform;
Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman, and Senator Joseph Liberman,
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;
and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and
Budget; and the 57 IGs, included in our review. Copies will be
made available to others upon request. Page 18
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Key contributors
to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you have any
questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
6240. Linda D. Koontz Associate Director, Audit Oversight and
Liaison Page 19 GAO/AIMD-99-203
IG Semiannual Reporting Contents Letter
1 Appendix I
24 Presidentially Appointed Inspectors General Included in Our
Review Appendix II
26 Designated Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our
Review Appendix III
28 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix IV
31 Semiannual Reporting Requirement of the Inspector General Act,
as Amended Page 20 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting
Appendix V
32 Summary of the Views of IGs, Agency Managers, and Congressional
Staff on the Current Semiannual Reporting Requirements Appendix VI
33 Comments From the Inspectors General Appendix VII
48 GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements Figures
Figure 1: Reporting Requirements That Provide the Presidential
IGs the Opportunity to Identify Significant Concerns With Agency
Operations
6 Figure 2: Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the
Opportunity to Identify Significant Concerns With Agency
Operations 7 Figure 3: Reporting Requirements That Provide the
Presidential IGs the Opportunity to Identify Concerns With Actions
Taken by Agency Management
8 Figure 4: Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the
Opportunity to Identify Concerns With Actions Taken by Agency
Management 9 Figure 5: Summary of Presidential IG Semiannual
Reports-Statistical Table Requirements 10 Figure 6: Summary of
DFE IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table Requirements 11 Page
21 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual
Reporting Contents Figure 7: Number of Presidential IG Reports
That Discuss Information on Governmentwide Issues
12 Figure 8: Number of DFE IG Reports That Discuss Information on
Governmentwide Issues
13 Figure 9: Number of Presidential IGs That Discuss Financial
Statement Audits and the Results Act
13 Figure 10: Number of DFE IGs That Discuss Financial Statement
Audits and the Results Act
14 Abbreviations CIA Central Intelligence Agency DFE
designated federal entity GPO Government Printing Office
IG inspector general OMB Office of Management
and Budget Page 22 GAO/AIMD-
99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Page 23 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
Semiannual Reporting Appendix I Presidentially Appointed
Inspectors General Included in Our Review
Appendix I Agency for International Development Central
Intelligence Agency Corporation for National and Community Service
Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of
Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of
Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban
Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice
Department of Labor Department of State Department of
Transportation Department of the Treasury Department of Veterans
Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services
Administration Page 24 GAO/AIMD-
99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix I Presidentially Appointed
Inspectors General Included in Our Review National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of
Personnel Management Railroad Retirement Board Small Business
Administration Social Security Administration Page 25
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix II Designated
Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our Review
Appendix I I Amtrak Appalachian Regional Commission Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Farm Credit Administration Federal Communications
Commission Federal Election Commission Federal Housing Finance
Board Federal Labor Relations Authority Federal Maritime
Commission Federal Reserve Board Federal Trade Commission
Government Printing Office Legal Services Corporation National
Archives and Records Administration National Credit Union
Administration National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment
for the Humanities National Labor Relations Board Page 26
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix II Designated
Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our Review National
Science Foundation Panama Canal Commission Peace Corps Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission
Smithsonian Institution Tennessee Valley Authority United States
International Trade Commission United States Postal Service Page
27 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual
Reporting Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Append Iix I I Our objectives were to obtain (1) information on
the composition of the semiannual reports and whether the 12
specific areas identified in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, were discussed in the semiannual reports and (2) the
views of a range of individuals who are familiar with the
semiannual reports-the IGs, agency managers, and congressional
staff-on the usefulness of the current reports and what
modifications, if any, should be made. To accomplish our first
objective, we reviewed the September 30, 1997, and March 31, 1998,
semiannual reports issued by 26 presidential and 30 DFE IGs-a
total of 112 reports. These were the two most recent semiannual
reports available at the time we initiated our review.1 We
compared the 12 areas specifically identified in the act to each
report to determine if the items were included, or identified by
the IG as not being applicable. In those instances in which all
12 areas were not clearly identified within the semiannual
reports, we followed up with the respective IG's office to
ascertain why it was not included. In most instances, the IG's
office commented that there was nothing to report. In those
cases, we considered the response to be "not applicable"-which we
have considered as being responsive to the IG Act reporting
requirements. In terms of our overall analysis, a "discussed"
response means the semiannual reports contained some information
for a particular reporting requirement, whereas, a "not discussed"
response means the semiannual report did not provide data for a
reporting requirement. A "no information to report" response
means that the IG indicated he or she had no information to report
for that particular reporting requirement. We did not
independently verify the information-for example, dollar savings-
contained in the semiannual reports. In reviewing these reports,
we also determined if the semiannual reports addressed selected
key management issues related to the results of financial
statement audits, information technology, the Year 2000 computer
problem, computer security, and their respective agency's
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act-
commonly referred to as the Results Act. Three of these issues-
financial statement audits, implementation of the Results Act, and
information technology-have been the subject of major management
reform legislation in recent years and as such are of particular
interest to the Congress. The remaining two issues- 1The Office
of the Inspector General for the Central Intelligence Agency did
not provide us copies of the semiannual reports and therefore, was
not part of our analysis. However, the CIA IG did participate in
our focus groups. Page 28
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix III Objectives,
Scope, and Methodology the Year 2000 problem and computer
security-have been identified by us as being governmentwide areas
at high risk2 and are likewise of particular interest to the
Congress, because such problems could disrupt the continuity of
key government operations. To accomplish our second objective, we
held focus groups with the IGs and agency management. In planning
for the focus groups, we requested that each IG and a
representative of each agency participate in the meetings. Fifty
of the IGs or their designees attended the meetings-26
presidential IGs and 24 DFE IGs. The 29 agency managers who
attended the focus group meetings were in senior-level positions
within their respective agency. For example, many of the
attendees were their respective agency's Chief Financial Officer,
while others served as their agency's Deputy Director for
Administration, Deputy Executive Director, Controller, or
Director, Office of Resource Management. We obtained the views of
the congressional staff through the use of a questionnaire.3 In
developing the list of congressional staff to whom we sent the
questionnaire, we asked each IG to list the congressional
committees, subcommittees, members, and congressional staff that
are provided a copy of the semiannual report. Prior to sending
out the questionnaire, it was pretested and revised as necessary.
The questionnaire was sent to 232 congressional staff and
responses were received from 574 staff. The congressional staff
that responded represented a cross-section of the Senate and House
oversight, appropriation, and authorization committees. In regard
to the purpose and usefulness of the semiannual reports, we asked
the agency managers and congressional staff their views as users
of the reports. Also, we asked each group its respective views on
the current reporting requirements and what modifications, if any,
should be considered. Appendix V summarizes the views of all
three groups with regard to the current reporting requirements.
We performed our review 2High-Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/HR-
97-1, February 1997). 3Two focus group sessions were held with
congressional staff. Since only eight attended, we used a
questionnaire to obtain a broader spectrum of views. The views
presented at the focus groups were used to demonstrate how
congressional staff use the semiannual reports. The questionnaire
results were used to quantify information such as the data
presented in appendix V. 4We received responses from 57
congressional staff, but 10 indicated that they either do not
receive the semiannual reports or do not use them. Page 29
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix III Objectives,
Scope, and Methodology from September 1998 through May 1999, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the 57 IGs
included in our review and two officials in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB): the Deputy Director of OMB and the
Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management. The
Acting Controller provided oral comments on behalf of OMB. At the
time we finalized our report, we had received written or oral
comments from all 57 IGs. The written responses that contained
comments on the draft report or provided additional views on the
issue of semiannual reports are discussed in the "Agency Comment"
section and reprinted in appendix VI. Page 30
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix IV Semiannual
Reporting Requirement of the Inspector General Act, as Amended
Appendix I V Sub-section Section 5(a) reporting requirements 1
A description of significant problems, abuses and deficiencies
relating to the administration of programs and operations of such
establishment disclosed by such activities during the reporting
period 2 A description of the recommendations for
corrective action made by the IG during the reporting period with
respect to significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies
identified pursuant to subsection 1 3 An
identification of each significant recommendation described in
previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not
been completed 4 A summary of matters referred to
prosecutive authorities and the prosecutions and convictions which
have resulted 5 A summary of each report made to the
head of the establishment when the IG judges that there has been
an unreasonable refusal to provide requested information or
assistance 6 A list, subdivided according to subject
matter, of each audit report issued by the IG during the reporting
period and for each audit report, where applicable, the total
dollar value of questioned costs and the dollar value of
recommendations that funds be put to better use 7 A
summary of each particularly significant report 8
Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and
the total dollar value of questioned costs audit reports a. for
which no management decision had been made, b. which were issued
during the reporting period, c. for which a management decision
was made during the period, and d. for which no management
decision had been made by the end of the reporting period 9
Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and
the dollar value recommendations that funds be put to better use
by management, for audit reports a. for which no management
decision had been made by the commencement of the reporting
period, b. which were issued during the reporting period, c. for
which a management decision was made during the period, and d.
for which no management decision had been made by the end of the
reporting period 10 A summary of each audit report
issued before the commencement of the reporting period for which
no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting
period, an explanation of the reasons such management decision has
not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable
for achieving a management decision on each such report 11
A description and explanation of the reasons for any significant
revised management decision made during the reporting period 12
Information concerning any significant management decision with
which the Inspector General disagrees Page 31
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix V Summary of the
Views of IGs, Agency Managers, and Congressional Staff on the
Current Semiannual Reporting Requirements Appendix V Requirementa
Keep Delete
Modifyb IGs AM CS Total IGs AM
CS Total IGs AM CS Total 14 1
2 0 3 7 9 8 1 2 0 3 6 4 5 1 5 24 1 1 5 3 8 9 4 1 3 0 4 6 8 4 1 8
33 6 1 3 3 2 8 1 5 6 1 1 2 5 7 6 1 8 44 0 1 3 3 4 8 7 3 7 2 1 2 5
5 2 1 2 5 44 16 30 90
2 6 1 9 2 3 2
7 6 28 7 31 66 10
11 2 23 10 6 3
19 7 38 10 34 82 5
12 2 19 5 4 2
11 8 13 5 27 45 21
9 6 36 14 10 1
25 9 13 3 25 41 20
12 5 37 15 9 3
27 10 25 15 26 66 14
7 2 23 9 4 7
20 11 28 15 27 70 14
8 2 24 6 3 4
13 12 41 16 35 92 5
5 0 10 2 4 3
9 Legend: IG--inspector general AM--agency managers CS--
congressional staff Note: Not all of the IGs or their designees
(50), agency managers (29), or congressional staff (47), provided
their views on each of the current reporting requirements.
Therefore, the number of responses will not in all cases add to 50
for the IGs, 29 for the agency managers, or 47 for the
congressional staff. aSee appendix IV for the specific wording for
each of the listed reporting requirements. bIn some instances, the
respondents suggested that the current reporting element be
modified, but did not provide any specifics. In other instances,
it was suggested that the specific words within a given
requirement be revised or additional explanation provided. While
others suggested combining several requirements. Page 32
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General
Appendix VI Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report
text appear at the end of this appendix. See comment 1. Page 33
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General See comment 2. Page 34
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General See comment 3. See comment 2. See comments
2 and 4. Page 35 GAO/AIMD-99-203
IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From the Inspectors
General See comment 5. See comment 6. Page 36
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General See comment 7. See comment 8. See comment
9. Page 37 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From the Inspectors
General See comment 10. See comment 11. Letter Page 38
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 39
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 40
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 41
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 42
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 43
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 44
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General Page 45
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General The following are GAO's comments on the
Appalachian Regional Commission Inspector General's letter dated
June 29, 1999, Department of Justice Inspector General's letter
dated July 15, 1999, Small Business Administration Inspector
General's letter dated July 20, 1999, and the National Labor
Relations Board Inspector General's letter dated July 21, 1999.
GAO Comment 1. The report, as written, discusses the extent to
which congressional staff, Inspectors General, and agency
management believe the semiannual reports are meeting the
expectations of each respective group. In regard to the
appropriate frequency of reporting, there was no consensus among
the focus group participants on this issue. The congressional
staff were generally in favor of retaining the semiannual
reporting requirement, whereas most of the agency managers favored
annual reporting. In regard to the IGs, 17 of 24 presidential IGs
favored annual reporting; but 11 of 24 DFE IGs favored continuing
with semiannual reporting. Finally, the alternative mentioned in
the comment letter was not among the major points of view
discussed by the focus group participants. 2. We have provided
additional details regarding participation by congressional staff
and IGs. 3. We recognize that the Inspector General Act does not
require the semiannual reports to discuss governmentwide issues.
Our analysis in this area was a means of characterizing the
contents of the semiannual reports by identifying the extent to
which the reports addressed well-known management challenges that
are facing all agencies across government. We did not single out
information technology, the Year 2000 problem, and computer
security but also included financial statement audits and Results
Act implementation. Three of these issues-financial statement
audits, implementation of the Results Act, and information
technology-have been the subject of major management reform
legislation in recent years and as such are of particular interest
to the Congress. The remaining two-the Year 2000 problem and
computer security-have been identified by GAO as being
governmentwide areas at high risk and are likewise of particular
interest to the Congress, because such problems could disrupt the
continuity of key government operations. We have revised the
report to include our rationale for selecting these issues. 4. We
have clarified the report to show that appropriations staff were
also queried. The results of the questionnaire sent to
congressional staff cannot Page 46
GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
the Inspectors General be extrapolated to the universe of staff
surveyed. For this reason, the report properly discusses only the
views of the staff that responded. 5. As discussed in the report,
our objective was to summarize the views of a wide range of
knowledgeable individuals on the semiannual reports and, thus, we
draw no conclusions. The report, as written, includes the
participants' rationale for their views where we were able to
identify common themes in the focus group discussions. However,
we did not specifically attempt to identify the participants'
rationale for their views on keeping, deleting, or modifying the
existing reporting requirements. 6. This report does not discuss
the full range of IG reporting requirements as this was beyond the
scope of our work. 7. The report does not identify the specific
views of any particular IG, but rather, represents the most common
views provided by the various focus groups held with the IGs. In
that regard, the IG of the National Labor Relations Board
participated in the focus group sessions while serving as the IG
at the International Trade Commission. 8. The terms, as discussed
in the report, are technically correct and therefore, no changes
to the report are necessary. 9. For figures 1 through 6 "not
applicable" has been changed to "no information to report." 10.
The use of the term "significant" on pages 9 and 10 describes the
first reporting requirement of the IG Act which requires a
discussion of ". . . significant problems, abuses, and
deficiencies . . ." as further defined in appendix IV. The tables
on these pages show the number of semiannual reports which
contained a discussion of problems that the IGs themselves
described as "significant." We made no independent judgements on
the IGs' designations. 11. No change to the report is deemed
necessary. Page 47 GAO/AIMD-99-
203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VII GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgements Appendix VII GAO Contacts Darby W.
Smith, (202) 512-7803 Edith A. Pyles, (202) 512-9582
Acknowledgements In addition to those named above,
Jackson W. Hufnagle, Jeffrey A. Jacobson, Dieter M. Kiefer, and
RoJeanne L. Liu made key contributions to this report. (911937)
Letter Page 48 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
Semiannual Reporting 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 United
States Bulk Rate General Accounting Office
Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. GI00 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
*** End of document. ***