GAO and Inspector General Recommendations to Agencies: An Introduction

GAO and Inspector General Recommendations to Agencies: An Introduction Updated October 6, 2026 (IF11807) To support its legislative and oversight functions, Congress has established institutions dedicated to monitoring and reporting on federal agencies and making recommendations intended to improve those agencies' integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness. These entities include the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and dozens of statutory Offices of Inspector General (OIGs). One way these offices fulfill their missions is by making specific recommendations to agencies that are intended to improve the agencies' operations or to address specific issues of compliance with laws or regulations, or other criteria. These recommendations can help identify issues or programs in agencies that might warrant additional oversight by Congress, create feedback loops regarding agency program implementation, and provide ideas and data to inform legislation. These recommendations may also prompt agencies to address issues without a need for direct congressional intervention. This In Focus introduces the topic of GAO and OIG recommendations, their underlying statutory frameworks, and how they might be relevant to Congress. While this In Focus covers both GAO and OIG recommendations because of their practical similarities, GAO and the OIGs are authorized by different statutes and provided with distinct missions and roles, which has resulted in some differences in approach and methods. What Are GAO and OIG Recommendations? A recommendation from GAO or an OIG is a formal suggestion—following careful study of agency activities—offered to agencies and intended to resolve an identified issue at the agency. Collectively, GAO and OIGs issue thousands of recommendations to agencies each year. Generally, both GAO and OIGs appear to take a broad view of the reasons they might issue recommendations. The OIG for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, states that it makes "evidence-based recommendations" to " pursue accountability, promote good governance, and drive positive change. " Recommendations are typically offered as action items in written reports, including audits, investigations, studies, and evaluations. Recommendations are generally short and directive and are a way for GAO and OIGs to distill key points and identify possible responses. Recommendations are often described in more detail in the underlying report with additional context and reasoning to explain their necessity and potential benefits. Not all observers will necessarily agree with each GAO and OIG recommendation or the premises on which they are based. Agencies are usually offered the opportunity to review and respond to GAO and OIG reports before publication. When agencies disagree with findings or recommendations, they generally share those points of disagreement with the oversight team. GAO and OIGs generally include such correspondence regarding recommendations as part of final reports. Contrasting views may assist Congress in weighing the considerations or trade-offs at play. Tracking Recommendations Both GAO and the interagency body of OIGs—the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)—track recommendations in a manner that may be useful to Congress and the public. GAO maintains a searchable database of its recommendations . GAO's list includes over 5,000 open recommendations. GAO has determined that about 450 of these recommendations would have a particularly significant impact and has classified them as "priority recommendations." CIGIE maintains a similar web page that collects recommendations from OIGs across the government, provides updates on their status, and includes statistical data that allow users to review open recommendations by agency, age, and other metrics. OIGs are currently tracking over 12,000 open recommendations, of which over 50 are priority recommendations. Illustrative Recommendations Recommendations come in a variety of forms with different levels of contextual detail and technical discussion. While those nuances are not entirely explored here, the following are two examples from a September 2026 GAO report on the drug scheduling process : The Commissioner of FDA [Food and Drug Administration] should develop policies and procedures that Center for Drug Evaluation and Research staff are to use to when completing eight-factor evaluations and developing scheduling recommendations, including the criteria and process for determining a substance's "potential for abuse," including abuse potential relative to other substances. The Commissioner of FDA and the Director of NIH [National Institutes of Health] should update their memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning developing drug scheduling recommendations. The updated MOU should reflect the current entities involved and procedures and include a term clause to ensure the MOU is regularly reviewed. The first of these recommendations likely relies on the reader to either have specific technical knowledge or do additional research to understand what the "eight-factor evaluations" are and other technical aspects of evaluating drugs for potential for abuse. The second recommendation, on the other hand, while it requires some general knowledge about the regulation of scheduled drugs, may be broadly understood without additional explanation. Each of these recommendations is presented with additional context and evidence in the related report. Statutory Framework Both GAO and OIGs are authorized by law to make recommendations to agencies in their mandated and discretionary reviews of agency activities. While GAO and OIGs have similar purposes and authorities, they operate under distinct statutes that treat agency recommendations differently. Offices of Inspector General The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act; P.L. 95-452 ) establishes that one purpose of IGs is to recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations (5 U.S.C. §402). The IG Act specifies that each OIG has a duty to make recommendations to agencies on ways to improve the economy and efficiency of their operations in a variety of ways (5 U.S.C. §404). Additionally, OIGs must report to Congress every six months on their activities. In these semiannual reports, OIGs are now specifically required by the IG Act to identify "each significant recommendation" for which "corrective action has not been completed" (5 U.S.C. §405(b)). Government Accountability Office GAO has broad authority to investigate and report on "all matters related to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money" (31 U.S.C. §712) and to "evaluate the results of a program or activity the Government carries out under existing law" (31 U.S.C. §717). Under these provisions, GAO may initiate an investigation or evaluation on its own initiative, at the direction of either house of Congress, or at the request of a committee of jurisdiction. When GAO issues a recommendation to an agency, the head of that agency is required to submit a "written statement on action taken or planned on the recommendation" and submit that recommendation to certain congressional committees (31 U.S.C. §720). In addition to this general statutory framework, Congress sometimes passes statutes with language requiring GAO to prepare a specified report or evaluation. For example, in 2020, Congress passed P.L. 116-187 , which directed the Comptroller General of the United States (who leads GAO) to study disability and pension benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to National Guard members and Armed Forces reservists. By passing legislation mandating the study, Congress was able to establish its scope, specify the contents, and set a reporting deadline for GAO's work. GAO published this study in 2023. Roles of Congress Recommendations issued by GAO and OIGs can, and often do, serve as raw material for the oversight and legislative work of Congress. Specifically, there are at least three ways that Congress might use recommendations. First, reviewing recommendations is one way that Congress can identify and learn about issues that may warrant additional oversight. GAO and OIGs are structured to have resources, access, and technical expertise that allow them to identify and analyze matters that might be difficult for Congress itself to review on its own. Further, when recommendations and reports are the basis for oversight hearings, GAO and OIGs can be invited to testify on their findings along with related agencies. Second, Congress can use its authority over agencies to encourage them to implement recommendations. While neither GAO nor OIGs have authority to compel agencies to act, it is often the case that reporting on an issue to Congress will encourage agency action. In this context, tracking of unresolved recommendations by GAO and CIGIE may be useful. Congress might seek to monitor how quickly agencies act on recommendations and when recommendations remain unresolved. That knowledge may drive additional oversight by identifying less responsive agencies or highlighting especially challenging issues. Third, a recommendation might call for congressional action or inspire legislation. Congress has authority over many aspects of the jurisdiction, organization, and activities of executive branch agencies and may choose to act on the basis of a particular recommendation. Factors such as the significance of an issue, public awareness and concern, or the effectiveness of an agency's response may influence Congress's course of action. For instance, an agency might identify a statute that makes it more difficult to implement a specific recommendation. In such cases, Congress might consider legislation that enables an agency to resolve the underlying issue identified by the report.

Related documents

• Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission#922528
• 12 U.S.C. § 1881 — “Federal supervisory agency” defined#564211
• 22 U.S.C. § 4005 — Implementation of selection board recommendations#578738
• Food and Drug Administration's regulation of dietary supplements : hearing before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, July 20, 1993#334152
• 15 U.S.C. § 78d-9 — Report on oversight of national securities associations#567570