Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Fact check: Do the Government Accountability Office's annual recommendations "go ignored" every year?
October 25, 2015
By Charles Aull
Do the annual cost-savings recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office "go ignored" every year?
Congressman Sam Graves (R) of Missouri stated in a September 28 press release that they do.
We looked at an internal audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and it suggests that most of their recommendations manage to spur action. The audit shows that almost 80 percent of its recommendations between 2011 and 2014 have been either fully or partially implemented. Meanwhile, 20 percent have so far been left unaddressed.
Background
Founded in 1921, the GAO is a nonpartisan federal agency that works for Congress. Its primary job, as it says on its website, is "to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people."
Since 2011, the GAO has published an annual report documenting instances of fragmentation, overlap and duplications within the legislative and executive branches of the federal government and making recommendations on how to reduce government spending and improve efficiency. The 2015 report was released last April.
In September, these annual GAO reports became the basis of legislation proposed by Sam Graves, an eight-term Congressman representing Missouri's sixth district. Graves' bill, The Improving All Government Efficiency Act, would require federal agencies to implement all GAO recommendations made in its annual report or face the penalty of having their budgets automatically cut by 1 percent at the end of the fiscal year.
In a press release dated September 28, 2015, Graves linked to the most recent GAO report on duplications and cost-savings and said, "A lot of hard decisions have to be made in order to get our debt under control, but cutting programs like these should be a no-brainer. Every year the Government Accountability Office puts out a report identifying billions of dollars' worth of waste, and every year their suggestions go ignored. That is simply unacceptable."
We reached out to Graves' office to find out whether he meant all GAO recommendations "go ignored" or just some. His press secretary, Wesley Shaw, informed us via email that Graves' statement referred "to the fact that too many of GAO's suggestions go ignored each year. Wasting even one opportunity to eliminate unnecessary spending programs like those identified in the reports is frustrating and frankly unacceptable, and we hope to ensure these suggestions are not ignored going forward."
How many GAO recommendations "go ignored"?
Thanks to a GAO audit sent to us by Chuck Young, the managing director of public affairs at GAO, we were able to find out many GAO recommendations have been implemented and how many have not.
The audit is part of the GAO's 2015 annual report. It documents how many GAO recommendations made between 2011 and 2014 have been implemented versus how many have not been implemented. To conduct the audit, GAO staff followed up on previously proposed action items by examining recent legislation, financial documents and executive orders and by conducting interviews with key staff in relevant agencies and organizations. It divided the status of these action items into three categories for both the legislative and executive branches of government. These categories are paraphrased below:
| Legislative Branch | Executive Branch |
|---|---|
|
1. Addressed: enacted legislation has addressed every aspect of the action item. 2. Partially addressed: a) a bill addressing every aspect of the action item has made it out of committee; or b) enacted legislation has addressed some aspects of the action item. 3. Not addressed: a) a relevant bill has not made it out of committee; or b) no legislation on the action item has been introduced. |
1. Addressed: all necessary actions to address the recommendation have been implemented. 2. Partially addressed: measures to address the action item are under development or have been started. 3. Not addressed: minimal or no progress has been made toward addressing the action item.
|
The GAO features a tool on their website called the "Action Tracker" that can help us see what these definitions actually mean in practice. The Action Tracker is described as "an online tool for monitoring the progress executive branch agencies and Congress have made in addressing the actions identified in GAO's annual reports." It allows users to select an action item and see, according to the GAO's analysis, what progress, if any, has been made toward implementing it.
In 2011, for example, the GAO advised the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "to replace or modify older checked baggage screening systems with more efficient solutions." The Action Tracker reports that by December 2013, the TSA had replaced manual baggage screen systems with automated ones in over 100 airports, resulting in $104.5 million in reduced spending between 2011 and 2013 and enabling the TSA to reassign personnel to other security-related tasks. The GAO considered this action item fully addressed.
An example of a "partially addressed" action item can be found in the Department of Labor's (DOL) response to the GAO's 2013 recommendation that the Secretary of Labor "should consistently report both performance goals and associated performance outcomes for each of its veterans' employment and training programs." The Action Tracker notes that in the DOL's end-of-year reports in 2013 and 2014 the department reported performance goals and outcomes for some of its veterans’ programs, but not all. As a result, the GAO considers the item partially addressed.
Finally, we can see an example of a not addressed action item in a 2011 recommendation that Congress repeal provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill reassigning responsibilities for catfish inspection from the Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The GAO argued that these provisions have resulted in "an inefficient use of taxpayer funds and a duplication of activities" and that no legislation has yet fully removed the USDA's responsibility for catfish inspection. The GAO therefore assessed the item as not addressed.
Keeping these definitions in mind, the GAO audit shows that of a total of 438 recommendations on government duplications and cost-savings made between 2011 and 2014 it identified 76 percent as either fully implemented (37 percent) or partially implemented (39 percent). Conversely, it identified a total of 20 percent as not addressed, while the GAO assessed another 4 percent as "consolidated or other."
Young told us via email, "Each year we do identify billions of dollars in potential savings in our annual duplication, overlap, and fragmentation and cost savings report [...] some recommendations have been adopted and some have not been fully addressed with a great potential for significant savings still remaining."
Conclusion
Congressman Sam Graves of Missouri stated last month, "Every year the Government Accountability Office puts out a report identifying billions of dollars' worth of waste, and every year their suggestions go ignored."
Because Graves did not specify how many recommendations he says get "ignored" every year, and when we reached out to his office to find out his press secretary told us "too many," we refrain from saying unequivocally whether we think the statement is accurate or inaccurate. But we do note that, according to a 2015 GAO internal audit, 76 percent of the recommendations that it made to the executive and legislative branches between 2011 and 2014 have been either partially or fully implemented, while 20 percent have not been addressed. The data suggests that a considerable portion of the GAO's recommendations have not gone ignored.
Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2025, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.
Sources
Government Accountability Office, "GAO at a Glance," accessed October 23, 2015
Government Accountability Office, "About," accessed October 23, 2015
Email exchange with Wesley Shaw on October 21, 2015
Government Accountability Office, "Action Tracker," accessed October 23, 2015
Email exchange with Chuck Young on October 21, 2015
Contact
More from Fact Check by Ballotpedia
 October 22, 2015 |
 October 16, 2015 |
 October 14, 2015 |
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
