Federal Ethics Programs: Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved

Federal agencies' ethics programs seek to prevent conflicts of interest and safeguard the integrity of governmental decision-making.

GAO was asked to review compliance with ethics requirements for political appointees in the executive branch. This report examines the extent to which (1) existing data identify political appointees serving in the executive branch, and (2) selected agencies use internal controls to reasonably ensure that their ethics programs are designed and implemented to meet statutory and regulatory requirements.

GAO reviewed available data on political appointees. GAO also reviewed three case study agencies selected to provide a range in agency size and number of political appointees. GAO reviewed ethics documentation for a nongeneralizable sample of political appointees at the three agencies at any point between January 2017 and 2018 and interviewed officials from the agencies and two non-governmental organizations.

There is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely. Political appointees make or advocate policy for a presidential administration or support those positions. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two nongovernmental organizations collect, and in some cases, report data on political appointees, but the data are incomplete. For example, the data did not include information on political appointee positions within the Executive Office of the President. The White House Office of Presidential Personnel (PPO) maintains data but does not make them publicly available.

The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable. As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch. OPM is positioned to maintain and make political appointee data publicly available on a timely basis but is limited in its ability to provide comprehensive data. PPO has more comprehensive data but may not be positioned to publish data on a recurring basis. Ultimately, it is a policy decision as to which agency is best positioned to report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees.

All three agencies GAO reviewed generally used appropriate internal controls to ensure they met basic ethics program requirements, though two of the agencies could take actions to strengthen their ethics programs.

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Interior (Interior), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) all have procedures for administering their financial disclosure systems. HHS and Interior had procedures for providing initial ethics training as required beginning in January 2017. Prior to February 2019 SBA did not have written procedures for initial ethics training and did not adequately document political appointees' training dates. SBA's written procedures now reflect the requirements of initial ethics training and SBA developed a tracking sheet to indicate appointees completed training. GAO will assess the implementation of the tracking sheet to confirm the process is sufficient for documenting appointees' completion of initial ethics training.

Interior's ethics program has human capital and workforce continuity challenges. Interior reported that four out of 14 full-time positions were vacant. Interior officials attributed the vacancies to a recent transformation of the ethics program and prioritizing the staffing at individual bureaus such as the National Park Service. However, vacancies affected the ethics program's ability to properly document policies and procedures as well as file and review financial disclosure forms. According to Interior officials, steps are being taken to address vacancies and document policies and procedures. However, GAO found that a more strategic and documented approach would enable Interior to better manage human capital, fill key positions, and maintain institutional knowledge.

Congress should consider legislation requiring the publication of political appointees serving in the executive branch. GAO also recommends three actions: SBA should document that training was completed; Interior should conduct more strategic planning for its ethics workforce and document ethics program policies and procedures. SBA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendation, but provided documentation that partially addresses the recommendation. Interior agreed with GAO's recommendations.

The basic obligation of public service is to place loyalty to the  Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain. By acting  ethically, government officials can increase public confidence in the  integrity of the federal government. Federal agencies’ ethics programs  are to support ethical behavior by seeking to prevent conflicts of interest  and safeguard the integrity of governmental decision-making. Ethics  programs establish a foundation on which to build and sustain an ethical  culture in the executive branch, including among the political appointees  who can constitute the top management of executive branch agencies.

You asked us to review compliance with ethics requirements as they  relate to political appointees in the executive branch. This report  examines the extent to which (1) existing data identify political appointees  serving in the executive branch at any point in time, and (2) selected  agencies use appropriate internal controls to reasonably ensure that their  ethics programs are designed and implemented to meet statutory and  regulatory requirements. This report does not assess the overall  objectives of federal agencies ethics programs and if those objectives are  being effectively met.

For the first objective, we reviewed relevant laws and standards and the  United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book).  We interviewed officials from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  to understand the data they collect on political appointees. We also  interviewed officials from two nongovernmental organizations, ProPublica  and the Partnership for Public Service, which track political appointees  serving in the executive branch at any point in time. We contacted the  White House Office of Presidential Personnel (PPO) to discuss and  request information on how it tracks, maintains, and uses data on political  appointees. PPO redirected our request for information to the White  House Counsel’s Office. As of March 2019, the White House Counsel’s  Office had not responded to our requests for information. We interviewed  two senior PPO officials from the two previous administrations to  understand how they tracked and used data on political appointees. We  assessed the information we gathered against principles for internal  control regarding external communication and directives for the  transparency and public availability of government data.

For the second objective, we interviewed officials from the Office of  Government Ethics (OGE), which sets policy for the executive branch  ethics program and monitors ethics program compliance. We selected  four agencies as case studies for review of their ethics programs. We  selected the four agencies to provide a range in the number and type of  political appointees in each agency, a range in agency size, and a range  in the strength of their ethics programs, as determined by prior OGE  program reviews. We conducted case studies on three of the agencies we selected: the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the  Interior (Interior), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). The  fourth agency selected was the Executive Office of the President (EOP).  We contacted the White House Counsel’s Office in February 2018 to  solicit the EOP’s perspective on the ethics program in place at the White  House, and oversight of ethics compliance for political appointees in the  executive branch. As of March 2019, the White House Counsel’s Office  had not responded to our requests for information. Therefore, we did not  review the EOP ethics program.

To evaluate the extent to which the three case study agencies have and  use appropriate internal controls, we reviewed selected principles from  the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Standards  for Internal Control). These standards call for management to design  control activities, such as policies and procedures to achieve objectives.  Based on our review, analysis, and professional judgment, we selected  the internal control principles that were most relevant to effectively  executing an executive branch ethics program. We provided each agency  with an identical set of questions based on the selected internal control  principles and components. We reviewed agency responses to our  questions and supporting program and appointee documentation to  evaluate whether agencies’ policies and processes for overseeing ethics  compliance for political appointees were consistent with these principles.

In addition, we acquired data from HHS, Interior, and SBA, on political  appointees serving at any point between January 20, 2017 and January  28, 2018. To assess the reliability of the data, we asked each agency’s  officials about how the data were obtained, where the data came from,  and what steps, if any, each agency took to assure the accuracy and  completeness of the data. Based on responses provided by HHS, Interior,  and SBA, we determined that those agencies’ data were sufficiently  reliable to indicate each agency’s political appointees, with start and end  dates, for use selecting a sample of appointees’ at each agency. Next, we  used a nongeneralizable random sampling method to select political  appointees at each agency. We selected 12 political appointees at both  HHS and Interior, and 10 political appointees at SBA. We reviewed  relevant documentation for these appointees to determine whether  agency internal controls were sufficient to ensure that certain ethics  program requirements, such as signing the ethics pledge, completing  initial ethics training, and submitting a financial disclosure report, were  met. In addition, we interviewed agency ethics officials, as needed, to  discuss the documentation and information they provided. Our review of  political appointees’ documentation was limited to testing the agencies’  ethics program processes and procedures. We did not review individual  financial disclosure forms with the intent of identifying conflicts of interest  nor did we perform a conflict of interest analysis. See appendix I for a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to March 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was enacted to preserve and  promote the accountability and integrity of public officials, and the  institutions of the federal government. The act requires political  appointees and high-ranking government officials to complete a public  financial disclosure report to help prevent and mitigate conflicts of interest  for the purpose of increasing public confidence in the integrity of  government. The act also established restrictions on postemployment  activities of certain employees, and created OGE.

The primary mission of the executive branch ethics program is to prevent  conflicts of interest on the part of executive branch employees. The  executive branch ethics program is a shared responsibility across  government (see figure 1).

OGE is the supervising ethics office for the executive branch and sets  policy for the entire executive branch ethics program.

Executive branch agency heads are responsible for leading their  agency’s ethics program. Agency leaders are ultimately responsible  for their organizations’ ethical culture. Their actions can demonstrate  the level of commitment to ethics and set a powerful example for their  employees.

Designated Agency Ethics Officials (DAEO) and other agency  ethics staff carry out ethics program responsibilities and coordinate  with OGE.

Inspectors General and the Department of Justice are authorized  to investigate potential violations of criminal statutes pertaining to  ethics.

Executive branch employees are individually responsible for  understanding and complying with the requirements of ethics laws  and regulations, and are collectively responsible for making ethical  conduct a standard of government service.

Ethics Laws for Executive Branch Employees

Executive branch employees are ultimately responsible for understanding  and abiding by the various ethics laws. Generally, executive branch  employees are prohibited from working on government matters that will  affect their personal financial interest or the financial interests of a spouse  or minor child; general partner; any organization in which they serve as  an officer, director, or trustee; and any person or organization with whom  they are negotiating or have an arrangement for future employment.  Executive branch employees are also subject to  criminal statutes prohibiting bribery and illegal gratuities;  civil statutes requiring public financial disclosure; and employee standards of conduct, such as acting at all times in the  public’s interest, serving as good stewards of public resources, and  refraining from misusing their office for private gain.

Agency Offices of Inspectors General (OIG) have a responsibility to  investigate potential ethics violations. Among our three case study  agencies, since January 2017, the HHS and Interior OIG have  investigated potential travel and ethics issues involving political  appointees while the SBA OIG did not initiate any similar investigations.  The HHS OIG investigated the former Secretary of HHS’s use of  chartered and commercial aircraft and found that it did not always comply  with applicable federal travel regulations and HHS policies and  procedures. In response to its OIG’s findings, HHS implemented  additional steps for political appointees’ travel approval. Since January  2017, the Interior OIG has initiated five investigations into potential ethics  violations involving the former Secretary of the Interior. As of March 1,  2019, three investigations related to the former Secretary were  completed. As a result of the first completed investigation, the Interior  OIG found that “incomplete information” about the former Secretary’s  travel and use of chartered flights during 2017 was provided to the DAEO  for review. The other two completed investigations found no evidence that  the former Secretary violated ethics laws. Two investigations remained  open as of March 2019. Interior’s DAEO described multiple strategies that  were implemented to address issues observed within the ethics program  after he was hired in April 2018, such as establishing weekly meetings  with the former Secretary of the Interior to discuss ethics matters.

Executive Branch political appointees are subject to more ethics  restrictions than other executive branch employees. Appointees make or  advocate policy for a presidential administration or support those  positions. Appointees generally serve at the pleasure of the appointing  authority and do not have the civil service protections afforded to other  federal employees.

There are four major categories of political appointees: Presidential  Appointees with Senate confirmation (PAS); presidential appointees;  noncareer employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES); and  Schedule C employees. The most recent Plum Book, which was  published on December 1, 2016, identified about 4,000 political appointee  positions from these four major categories across the entire executive  branch as of June 30, 2016 (see figure 2). The Plum Book identifies  presidentially appointed positions within the federal government using  data from the Office of Personnel Management. It is published every 4  years just after the presidential election, alternately, by the Senate  Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In addition to the ethics laws for executive branch employees, several  recent presidential administrations have issued an order requiring political  appointees in executive branch agencies to sign an ethics pledge.  Some of the restrictions in the ethics pledge relate to areas already  covered under existing ethics provisions, such as restrictions on  accepting gifts and postemployment restrictions. Political appointees may  receive an ethics pledge waiver from the President or his designee of  certain or all ethics restrictions and authorizations enabling them to  participate in otherwise prohibited activities. Political appointees that sign the pledge are contractually bound to adhere to its restrictions. If violated,  the restrictions in the pledge could only be enforced through civil actions.

To foster transparency, federal law permits members of the public to  access various government records. OGE provides online access to  certified copies of public financial disclosure reports for PAS and certain  other executive branch employees, as well as any applicable ethics  agreements, certification of compliance for the ethics agreement, and  certificates of divestiture for PAS. OGE also provides online access to  copies of ethics pledge waivers for appointees at agencies. Members of  the public can use this information to assist in holding government  officials accountable for carrying out their duties free from conflicts of  interest.

No Single Source of Data on Political Appointees Exists That Is Comprehensive, Timely, and Publicly Available

OPM, PPO, and two nongovernmental organizations provide some data  on political appointees serving in the executive branch, but the data have  limitations that impede their usefulness. The Senate Homeland Security  and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Oversight and  Government Reform Committee publish OPM data on political appointees  after each presidential election in the Plum Book. Data include name,  title, type of appointment, salary, and location of employment. The data  reflect the positions and the individuals who are filling the positions at a  single point in time, about 5 months prior to the report’s publication. While  the data are comprehensive and publicly available, they are not timely.  Because the Plum Book is a snapshot in time, it does not reflect changes  that occur in between publications, such as changes to who is holding a  certain position, the position title, and vacancies.

OPM also maintains more timely data on federal personnel; however,  these data are not comprehensive or publicly accessible for identifying  individuals serving in political appointee positions. OPM maintains data in  the Executive and Schedule C System and the Enterprise Human  Resources Integration (EHRI) system—the latter serves as OPM’s  primary repository for human capital data. We found both systems have  limitations, several of which were also identified by OPM officials. The  Executive and Schedule C System is not comprehensive. It includes data  on Schedule C and noncareer SES political appointees, but generally  does not include data on presidential appointees or PAS. Publicly  available EHRI data do not identify political appointees, either at the  individual or group level. In addition, the EHRI source data is not publicly  available. Political appointees can be identified from a combination of  multiple variables, but these combinations are not consistent within or  across appointee types. OPM provided some data on political appointees  serving in the executive branch as of June 2018 from the Executive and  Schedule C System. We reviewed the data and found errors and  omissions. For example, we found instances in which individuals  appeared to be holding political appointee positions that they departed  several months prior and individuals known to currently hold political  appointee positions were not identified. We also found that the data are  incomplete. For example, the data did not include information on political  appointee positions within the EOP. The EOP provides data to OPM only  every 4 years for inclusion in the Plum Book.

In addition to OPM, the White House maintains timely data on political  appointees that are likely more comprehensive than OPM’s data but are  not publicly available. Historically, PPO maintained data on political  appointees as part of its responsibilities to recruit, vet, and place political  appointees in positions across the government. PPO data on political  appointees have not been made publicly available by the Trump, Obama,  or Bush administrations. According to former officials from the Bush and  Obama administrations, PPO maintained and used data on political  appointees to carry out its responsibilities. For example, during the  Obama administration, PPO established a database to help with filling  political appointee positions and managing the overall appointee process.

The database included preliminary information on candidates, such as  names, application status, and where the applicant was in the vetting  process. After a position was filled, the database tracked information such  as the name of the appointee, position, federal department or agency,  and start and departure dates. The primary limitation of the data was that  departure dates of political appointees were unreliable. The former  Obama administration official attributed this limitation to the lack of a  process for agencies to formally notify PPO when an appointee left a  position. To address this gap, PPO met regularly with staff in federal  agencies to review data for accuracy.

There are requests by members of the public to obtain data on political  appointees serving in the executive branch. For example, between  January 2017 and November 2018, OPM received approximately 32  requests through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for data on  political appointments across federal agencies. According to OPM  officials, requests for data on political appointees are common and tend to  increase at the start of a new administration. Former PPO officials also  stated that when they served at PPO they received requests for data on  political appointees serving in the executive branch.

In the absence of comprehensive and timely data on political appointees  serving in the executive branch, two nongovernmental organizations—the  Partnership for Public Service and ProPublica—stated that they collect  and report some data themselves. The Partnership for Public Service  primarily tracks and reports data on PAS appointments, which are  compiled from publicly available sources such as Congress.gov and  agency websites. According to the Partnership for Public Service,  accurately tracking departure dates is the most significant limitation.  Some PAS departures, such as cabinet level officials, are typically  reported in the media; however, lower-level PAS departures may not be  reported.

ProPublica collects and reports data on all types of political appointees  serving in the executive branch. To obtain and compile its data,  ProPublica makes FOIA requests to OPM and departments and agencies  across the executive branch for political appointee staffing lists.  ProPublica also makes requests for other data, such as financial disclosure forms through an administrative process required by the Ethics  in Government Act of 1978. ProPublica said it has had more than 166,000  unique visitors to its database since it launched in March 2018. According  to officials at ProPublica, one limitation is that they rely on agency  responses to FOIA requests and therefore the data may not be  comprehensive or timely.

The public has an interest in knowing who is serving in the government  and making policy decisions. The Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) stated that transparency promotes accountability by providing the  public with information about what the government is doing. In a 2009  memorandum, OMB directed agencies to make information available  online and to use modern technology to disseminate useful information,  rather than waiting for specific requests under FOIA. Although some  data are publicly available on political appointees and FOIA requests can  be used to varying effect to obtain data on political appointees, neither  option results in comprehensive, timely, and publicly available data. Until  the names of political appointees and their position, position type, agency  or department name, start and end dates are publicly available at least  quarterly, it will be difficult for the public to access comprehensive and  reliable information.

Making such information available would promote transparency. The  public, including independent researchers, the media, and  nongovernmental organizations, can use these data to perform  independent analyses to identify gaps and challenges for filling political  appointee positions or to identify potential conflicts of interest. Such  analyses would also facilitate congressional oversight of executive branch  appointees by providing a comprehensive and timely source of  information on political appointees.

As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government was required to  publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees  serving in the executive branch. As the leader of human resources and  personnel policy, OPM is positioned to collect, maintain, and make  political appointee data publicly available on a frequent and recurring  basis. However, OPM is limited in its ability to provide comprehensive  data, in part because it does not regularly receive data from each agency  that has political appointees, such as the EOP, which has approximately  225 political appointee positions based on the 2016 Plum Book. PPO is  positioned to make more comprehensive data on political appointees  publicly available. However, PPO is reestablished with each new  presidential administration, which could be a barrier to establishing a  consistent process for maintaining and publishing data on a recurring  basis. Ultimately, it is a policy decision as to which agency is best  positioned to report comprehensive and timely data on political  appointees.

SBA and Interior Ethics Programs Did Not Meet All Documentation Requirements and Interior and HHS Had Workforce Continuity Challenges

All three agencies we reviewed—HHS, Interior, and SBA—generally used  appropriate internal controls to ensure they met basic ethics program  requirements, such as financial disclosure, though two of the agencies— Interior and SBA—could do more to strengthen their ethics programs.  SBA and Interior had not fully documented some of their procedures for  ethics training and the ethics pledge, respectively. In implementing their  ethics programs, each agency addressed human capital issues and  workforce continuity challenges; however, we found that vacancies and  staff turnover had negative effects on Interior’s ethics program. For the  full results of our assessment of agencies’ internal controls, see appendix  II.

Reviewed Agencies Generally Met Basic Requirements for Financial Disclosure and Ethics Training, but Interior and SBA Did Not Document Some Procedures

All three agencies we reviewed met the minimum statutory and regulatory  requirement to have written procedures for financial disclosure. Federal law requires agencies to develop written procedures to collect, review,  and evaluate financial disclosure reports (see sidebar).

Each agency established financial disclosure processes in addition to  what is required to reduce the risk of political appointees performing  agency work while they may have conflicts of interest. For example, prior  to an HHS political appointee’s first day, the HHS process requires the  appointee’s financial disclosure report to be submitted and reviewed, and  any potential conflicts be either resolved or identified, and an ethics  agreement put in place with a timeline for conflict of interest resolution.  This process aims to ensure that appointees are in compliance with ethics  laws and regulations when they begin government service, rather than 30  days or more into their appointment.

File a new entrant public financial  disclosure report within 30 days of  assuming a public filing position.  If appointed to a position requiring  Senate confirmation, file a nominee  report within 5 days of transmittal of the  President’s nomination to the Senate for  confirmation.  File a termination report within 30 days  of leaving office.

HHS and SBA have additional processes that include written procedures  which reflect OGE’s guidance for reviewing reports, such as following up  with appointees when a financial disclosure report appears incomplete.  OGE officials told us that engaging with an appointee during the review  process allows agencies to confirm that the appointee understands and  completes each required item. These interactions are also an opportunity  to provide ethics counseling and establish a relationship with appointees  who may be new to government service. Interior instituted a process in  June 2018 that requires ethics officials to interview new appointees,  review their financial disclosure report, and complete a financial  disclosure checklist prior to certification.

In reviewing a nongeneralizable sample of political appointees at each of  the three agencies, we found that nearly all political appointees filed  financial disclosure reports on time, with four exceptions of non-PAS  appointees from our Interior and SBA samples (see table 1). In one  case, an Interior appointee who was required to file both a new entrant  and termination report did not do so. According to Interior ethics officials,  the office mistakenly determined that the appointee was excluded from  public filing requirements. An individual who does not serve more than 60  days in a calendar year is not required to file a new entrant or a  termination financial disclosure report; however, this political appointee  served for 63 days.

Three appointees—two from SBA and one from Interior—filed new  entrant reports past their due dates. Late filing heightens the risk of  appointees performing agency work while having conflicts of interest;  however, none of the three appointees filed more than 30 days after the  due date or the last day of an extension, and therefore were not subject to  a late filing fee. For example, one Interior appointee received a 30-day  extension to file a new entrant report, but filed it 4 days late. One SBA  appointee received an extension exceeding the maximum time—90  days—that an agency may grant to any filer and consequently filed 2  days late. According to SBA ethics officials, the appointee was given a 92-day extension because the due date was miscalculated. A second  SBA appointee filed a report 1 day past the due date. We did not find  timeliness issues with any reports filed by appointees at HHS or filed by  PAS appointees at Interior or SBA.

Agency ethics officials generally reviewed appointees’ financial disclosure  reports in a timely manner. However, agencies followed up with non-PAS  political appointees’ to varying degrees when their financial disclosure  reports were potentially missing information. For example, SBA followed  up with an appointee to confirm that the appointee had not inadvertently  omitted information, such as a retirement plan, from the financial  disclosure report because the appointee reported having previous long- term employment. HHS asked for and received clarifying information from  an appointee who reported compensation for legal work but did not report  individual clients. However, Interior ethics officials told us they did not  follow up with two appointees in our sample who reported having no  previous outside employment. Interior officials acknowledged that the  reports were neither reviewed nor certified properly. According to  Interior’s new Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), the June 2018  update to Interior’s review process was implemented in response to  deficiencies within its financial disclosure program.

HHS and Interior had written procedures for initial ethics training as  required, but SBA did not until February 2019. Federal regulation requires  agencies to establish written procedures for providing initial ethics training  beginning in January 2017 (see sidebar).

Carry out an ethics education program to  teach employees how to identify  government ethics issues and obtain  assistance in complying with ethics laws  and regulations.

Establish written procedures, which the  DAEO must review each year, for  providing initial ethics training.

HHS’s and Interior’s written procedures reflect the requirements of initial  ethics training. For example, both agencies’ procedures describe time  frames for providing initial ethics training to political appointees no later  than 3 months after their appointment date, as well as the method for  doing so. Prior to February 2019, SBA did not have adequate written  procedures in place to address the requirement that became effective in  January 2017. SBA’s written procedures now reflect the requirements of  initial ethics training. Now that SBA officials have formally documented  procedures, they can have reasonable assurance that the procedures are  implemented as intended and that all required appointees are provided  initial ethics training.

Interior’s and HHS’s ethics programs track and maintain documentation of  dates that political appointees received initial ethics training. During the  time of our review, SBA did not adequately document political appointees’  training dates. For example, ethics officials at Interior manually record  training dates in a spreadsheet shared between Interior’s ethics office,  Office of Human Resources, and the White House Liaison. HHS requires  appointees to confirm in writing that they completed initial ethics training.  According to SBA ethics officials, the previous Alternate DAEO informally  documented the dates that political appointees received training in her  personal notes. Standards for internal control state that management  should document significant events, and that documentation and records  should be properly managed, maintained, and readily available for  examination. Allowing one individual to control all key aspects of  documenting an event puts the program at risk of errors. As of February  2019, SBA officials had developed a tracking sheet and a certificate for  appointees to sign that indicates they completed initial ethics training. We  plan to assess the implementation of the tracking sheet to confirm that  SBA is using the tracker to hold appointees accountable by documenting  their completion of initial ethics training requirements. By developing and  implementing a mechanism, such as a tracking sheet, SBA can have reasonable assurance that political appointees meet the requirement to  take initial ethics training.

Our review of agency documentation, including SBA’s informal  documentation, found that political appointees completed required initial  ethics training on time. Also, all three agencies provided the required  additional live ethics briefing for PAS appointees together with initial  ethics training.

In addition to required training, all three agencies provided examples of  other ways they have reminded appointees about their personal ethical  responsibilities. For example:  In advance of the holiday season, Interior provided supplementary  training to political appointees on restrictions on accepting gifts.

SBA used its agency-wide newsletter during the March Madness  college basketball tournament to remind employees that they are  prohibited from gambling in the workplace.

HHS updated its ethics website to highlight Hatch Act rules in  preparation for upcoming elections.

Political appointees we reviewed at each agency had signed the required  ethics pledge prescribed in Executive Order 13770, “Ethics Commitments  by Executive Branch Appointees.” However, nine Interior appointees’ and  one HHS appointee’s pledges were not timely signed. For example, the  former Secretary of the Interior signed the pledge 19 days after his  appointment. According to an Interior ethics official, the political  appointees were directed to sign the pledge at the start of their  appointments, but did not do so. Interior’s new DAEO told us in October  2018 that Interior now requires all appointees to sign the pledge on their  first day as a condition of continuing their employment; however, this  procedure has not been formally documented. The non-PAS HHS  appointee signed the pledge 9 days after his permanent appointment  date. While the restrictions under the pledge are enforceable by civil  action, there are no legal consequences, such as fines or penalties, for  failing to timely sign the pledge. for all appointees, a 2-year ban on  involvement in “particular matters”  involving former employers and  clients;  for former lobbyists, a 2-year ban on  involvement on particular matters on  which he or she lobbied; and  for appointees who leave  government service, a 5-year ban on  lobbying agencies in which they  served.

The President or his designee may grant a waiver of any of the  restrictions contained in the executive order. As of March 2019, 32  executive branch appointees—not including White House appointees— received limited waivers of the pledge. Interior’s then acting solicitor and  principal deputy solicitor signed a limited waiver of certain restrictions on  lobbying activities for one appointee in our sample upon the appointee’s  departure from the agency in July 2017. However, according to Interior  ethics officials, the official from the Solicitor’s Office did not have authority  to grant a waiver. Furthermore, Interior’s ethics office was not included in  the decision to grant the waiver, although Interior ethics officials ultimately  notified the appointee when they became aware that the waiver was  legally invalid. According to the DAEO, Interior is updating and  documenting its ethics program processes and procedures, including new  processes to sign ethics pledges and grant waivers, but did not provide a time frame for completion. We discuss Interior’s efforts to document  overall ethics program processes and procedures later in this report.

Reviewed Agencies’ Ethics Programs Face Human Capital and Workforce Continuity Challenges

We found that all of the agencies we reviewed are addressing human  capital issues and workforce continuity challenges to varying extents to  achieve the goals and objectives of the ethics program. Standards for  internal control state that management can help ensure operational  success by having the right personnel for the job on board and  maintaining a continuity of needed skills and abilities. Standards for  internal control also state that management has a responsibility to obtain  the workforce necessary to achieve organizational goals. HHS and  Interior reported challenges to recruiting and retaining ethics staff with the  necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities. All of the reviewed agencies  reported varying levels of effort to address vacancies, skills gaps, and  succession planning.

HHS reported vacancies in its ethics program as well as challenges in  recruiting and hiring; however ethics program officials took actions to  mitigate negative effects of the vacancies. As of October 1, 2018, HHS’s  Ethics Division had six vacancies out of 32 full-time positions (a vacancy  rate of approximately 19 percent), including the Alternate DAEO position.  HHS officials told us that a senior attorney was assigned to assume the  duties of the Alternate DAEO position for six months in 2018. HHS ethics  officials told us that the 2017 government-wide hiring freeze and  workforce reduction plan affected their efforts to fill vacancies. However,  ethics officials also told us that, as of October 1, 2018, four people had  tentatively accepted offers to fill vacancies. HHS ethics officials told us  that applicants for ethics attorneys and specialist positions generally do  not have a background in federal government ethics laws. As a result,  Ethics Division officials said that it must invest time and resources to train  new hires, who attend and review OGE trainings, participate in monthly  interagency ethics meetings, and take HHS-specific ethics training.

HHS ethics officials told us that new ethics program hires are assigned  work from across the spectrum of ethics subject matter and trained one- on-one by senior staff. To address staffing shortages and prepare for  potential attrition, the HHS ethics officials said they cross-train staff  members and assign back-up team members to support HHS’s operating  and staff divisions. In addition, to track potential staff attrition or  retirement, the ethics officials told us that the Ethics Division uses OPM’s  Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data collected from HHS  employees. However, the data only give the Ethics Division a general  sense of the number of personnel that are planning to leave or retire.  HHS Ethics Division officials said they use survey data because there is a  general sensitivity related to asking about retirement and delays in  planned retirements that could affect recruiting and hiring replacements.

Interior’s ethics office also reported vacancies and challenges in recruiting  and hiring that contributed to the issues in the ethics program. As of  November 2018, the Interior ethics office reported that out of 14 full-time  positions, four were vacant (a 29 percent vacancy rate). All vacancies  were ethics attorney positions. Interior reported an ongoing  transformation of the department’s ethics program and officials said that  the vacancies resulted from prioritizing the staffing at individual bureaus— such as the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service—instead  of the department-level ethics office, which is responsible for overseeing  the bureaus’ ethics programs and providing ethics services to employees  at the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Solicitor, and to all of  Interior’s political appointees. Interior’s ethics officials said that the high  vacancy rate in their ethics office affected its ability to properly collect and  review financial disclosure forms—one of the main responsibilities of the  federal ethics program. According to Interior’s new DAEO, the office  received an influx of financial disclosure reports during the presidential  transition, but was unprepared to handle them. Furthermore, during 2017  one official was responsible for reviewing and certifying more than 300  public financial disclosure forms. The official was unable to balance  proper and timely review of forms with other responsibilities that also  included reviewing and certifying more than 800 confidential disclosure  forms. In the Interior Inspector General’s 2018 report on Interior’s Major  Management Challenges, ethics staffing was identified as a limitation, as  staffing shortages could lead to delays in reviewing appointees’ financial  disclosure documentation.

While the single Interior official was experienced in reviewing financial  disclosure forms, Interior officials stated that there was not enough  management support, training, or resources provided to properly review  financial disclosure forms in 2017. According to the DAEO, a new  supervisory ethics official for financial disclosure forms was hired in  September 2018 as part of a proposed and ongoing organizational  restructuring of Interior’s ethics office. In addition, Interior posted a job  announcement for a second ethics attorney and now has two ethics  specialists for financial disclosures. The DAEO stated that the ethics  program also plans to increase the number of ethics officials that review  and certify financial disclosures, and has established new program goals,  such as improving ethics staff competencies for technical review of  financial disclosure reports.

Interior ethics officials also reported that the government-wide hiring  freeze affected their ability to hire staff and address ethics program staff  continuity. To build capacity within the ethics program and create a strong  ethical culture at the agency and bureau levels, the Acting Deputy  Secretary recommended in May 2017 that Interior develop a structure  and staffing plan to have a full-time ethics official for every 500  employees by fiscal year 2020. On October 26, 2018, Interior officials  stated that the ethics program was implementing the Acting Deputy  Secretary’s staffing plan. However, OGE benchmarking guidance states  that there is no “right” ratio for the number of ethics staff per employee,  and that agencies should determine their ratio based on certain aspects  of individual ethics programs, such as the scope of potential conflicts and  the complexity of financial disclosure reports.

Interior officials could not explain how the ratio was determined nor  provide a strategy for achieving the goal or evaluating whether the ratio is  meeting the needs of the department in the future. We have previously identified leading practices for human capital management; these  practices include that agencies should determine the workforce skills and  competencies needed to achieve current and future goals and objectives  as well as identify and develop strategies to address gaps. In addition,  agencies should continually assess and improve human capital planning  and investment, and assess the impact on accomplishing the mission.  Without having a better understanding of resource needs and  documenting how to properly allocate and determine needed resources,  Interior may not accurately estimate its needs and may not be best  positioned to assess and strengthen its ethics workforce to achieve  program goals and objectives.

Moreover, staff turnover at the Interior ethics office also reduced  institutional knowledge. For example, Interior’s ethics office could not  produce the documentation of the policies and procedures that support its  ethics program—an internal control requirement—such as documenting  and providing written responses to ethics queries and the tools used to  ensure short and long-term continuity of operations. However, the ethics  office previously provided documented evidence of some of these policies  and procedures in its response to OGE’s 2016 program review. Interior  ethics officials stated that the OGE response was produced prior to the  DAEO retiring and drafted by staff who no longer work at Interior.

Standards for Internal Control also require agencies to document key  processes and procedures to retain organizational knowledge and  mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel, as  well as a means to communicate that knowledge as needed to external  parties, such as external auditors. Both HHS and SBA provided  documentation of ethics program policies and procedures while Interior  did not provide documentation. Since there was no formal documentation  of the ethics program’s policies and procedures, Interior ethics officials  stated that the ethics office will document them as part of its  organizational restructuring plans. As of March 2019, Interior officials had  not provided this documentation. For example, the ethics program is to  ensure that all ethics related advice, legal analyses, and conclusions are  documented. However, without Interior completing the documentation of  its policies and procedures and making them accessible to staff,  institutional knowledge may be lost, and there is greater risk of not  achieving the goals and objectives of the ethics program.

SBA did not report challenges to recruiting or staff continuity in part  because of the small size of the ethics program. SBA’s ethics program is  administered by three full-time officials and during our review, the DAEO  position was vacant for more than 3 months due to the retirement of the  previous DAEO. However, the Alternate DAEO assumed the  responsibility for managing the ethics program until a new DAEO was  hired in August 2018. Ethics officials reported that the program could  draw upon a pool of field attorneys previously designated to perform  collateral ethics duties to temporarily address disruptions in staffing. To  address continuity and succession, SBA ethics officials reported that a  headquarters staff attorney was detailed to the ethics program to prepare  for the possible retirement of its current Alternate DAEO.

Strong ethics programs are critical to ensuring public trust in government  and the integrity of actions taken on the public’s behalf. The executive  branch ethics program is a shared responsibility across government.  Political appointees, in particular agency heads, have a personal  responsibility to exercise leadership in ethics. Some data are available on  political appointees serving in the Executive Branch but the data have  limitations that impede their usefulness. To facilitate independent review  and analysis related to political appointees, members of the public need  access to information on who is serving in political appointee positions.  Otherwise, they are limited in their ability to discern whether appointees  are performing their duties free of conflict. Information on the political  appointees serving in the executive branch at any point in time would also  facilitate congressional oversight. Both OPM and PPO are positioned to  report these data, but there are some benefits and drawbacks of each  agency’s current capacity that will need to be considered. Ultimately, it is  a policy decision as to which agency is best positioned to report  comprehensive and timely data on political appointees.

Further, a robust internal control system is critical for agency ethics  programs to achieve their mission of preventing conflicts of interest on the  part of their employees. Without effective internal controls, agency ethics  programs cannot reasonably assure that they are mitigating the risk—or  the appearance of—public servants making biased decisions when  carrying out the governmental responsibilities entrusted to them. During  the course of our review SBA took steps to establish written procedures  for initial ethics training, but still needs to complete the implementation of  procedures to track and verify that all political appointees meet ethics  training requirements.

As Interior continues to reorganize its ethics program, improved strategic  workforce planning can help to accurately assess its needs, maintain  continuity, and achieve program goals and objectives. Finally, ensuring  that Interior’s ethics processes and procedures are fully documented and  easily accessible to staff can help mitigate the risk of reduced institutional  knowledge, and can improve the ability to communicate with external  parties.

Congress should consider legislation requiring comprehensive and timely  information on political appointees serving in the executive branch to be  collected and made publicly accessible. (Matter for Consideration 1)

We are making a total of three recommendations, including one to SBA,  and two to Interior.

The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should implement  procedures to track and verify that required employees complete initial  ethics training and that completion of this training is documented.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Departmental Ethics Office,  in conjunction with the Chief Human Capital Officer, to develop,  document, and implement a strategic workforce planning process that  aligns with its ongoing departmental reorganization and that is tailored to  the specific needs of the ethics program. As part of this process, Interior  should monitor and assess the critical skills and competencies that its  ethics program needs presently and is projected to need in the future.  (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Interior should ensure that the department’s ethics  program policies and procedures are documented and easily accessible  to program staff. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Department of  Justice (DOJ), the White House Counsel’s Office at the Executive Office  of the President (EOP), the Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS), the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Inspector General of  the Department of the Interior (OIG), the Office of Government Ethics  (OGE), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small  Business Administration (SBA).

Interior, SBA, and OGE provided written comments, which are  reproduced in appendixes IV, V, and VI respectively. Interior officials  concurred with our recommendations and described steps they are taking  to begin addressing them.

In our draft report, we made two recommendations to SBA. Our first  recommendation was that SBA establish written procedures for initial  ethics training as required. SBA officials did not agree or disagree with  this recommendation, but during their review of the draft report, they  provided documentation to show that they had established written  procedures in line with our draft recommendation. As such, we revised  our final report to include the actions taken by SBA in February 2019 and  to delete our recommendation to establish written procedures for initial  ethics training.

With regard to our second draft recommendation to SBA, which remains  in our final report as our first recommendation, SBA again did not agree  or disagree with the recommendation. SBA officials provided  documentation to support that they have taken initial steps to address our  recommendation to implement procedures to track and verify completion  of initial ethics training by political appointees. We plan to assess the  implementation of these new procedures to confirm that, in operation,  these procedures meet the intent of our recommendation.

In addition to the written comments we received, SBA, HHS, OGE, and  OPM provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

DOJ and the Interior OIG had no comments on the draft report.

EOP did not respond to our request for comments.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 1 day from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Acting Attorney General of DOJ, the White  House Counsel, the Secretary of HHS, the Acting Secretary of the  Interior, the Acting Inspector General at the Interior, the Director of OGE,  the Acting Director of OPM, the SBA Administrator, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or nguyentt@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VII.

Our objectives were to evaluate the extent to which (1) existing data  identify political appointees serving in the executive branch at any point in  time, and (2) selected agencies use appropriate internal controls to  reasonably ensure that their ethics programs are designed and  implemented to meet statutory and regulatory requirements.

To evaluate the extent to which data identifying political appointees  serving in the executive branch at any point in time exist, we first  synthesized requirements for reporting and developed criteria for  comprehensive and timely reporting. We reviewed relevant laws and  standards, and the United States Government Policy and Supporting  Positions (Plum Book). We used the Office of Management and Budget’s  Open Government Directive (M-10-06) memorandum to develop criteria  for transparency and public availability.

We interviewed officials from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  to understand the extent to which data they collect on current political  appointees are comprehensive, timely, and reportable. OPM provided  data on the political appointees serving in the federal government  between January 2017 and June 2018. We also requested and obtained  information from OPM on the volume of Freedom of Information Act  requests for data on political appointees to assess demand for this type of  data. To further evaluate public demand for political appointee data, we  interviewed two nongovernmental organizations that track political  appointees in the executive branch, ProPublica, and the Partnership for  Public Service. We gathered information on the public’s demand for  information regarding political appointees, and the use and limitations of  data. Both organizations provided statistics quantifying public demand,  including number of unique visitors to their website and media  impressions. Media impressions are any viewing of or interaction with a  piece of content. We requested information or interviews with the Office of  Presidential Personnel (PPO) and several White House Liaisons to  understand how they track, maintain, and use data on political appointees  serving in the executive branch. A senior leader at PPO and one White  House Liaison acknowledged our request for an interview but deferred to  the White House Counsel’s Office. As well, an ethics officer indicated they  would be unable to facilitate the exchange of information with the White  House Liaison Office in their agency. The White House Counsel’s Office did not acknowledge requests for information or interviews. We  interviewed former senior PPO officials from the two previous  administrations to understand how they tracked, maintained and used  data on political appointees.

To identify internal control processes and determine the extent to which  selected agencies use appropriate controls to ensure their ethics  programs are designed and implemented to meet statutory and regulatory  requirements, we first identified four case study agencies. We selected a  range of case study agencies based on the number and type of political  appointees as well as the strength of their ethics programs, as  determined by Office of Government Ethics (OGE) reviews. Using data  from the 2016 Plum Book, we identified the total number of political  appointee positions within each agency or department across the  following four categories: presidential appointees with Senate  confirmation (PAS), presidential appointees, noncareer members of the  Senior Executive Service, and Schedule C appointees. We selected the  Executive Office of the President (EOP) as a case study agency because  EOP has the largest number of presidential appointees, and because  OGE has not recently conducted a program review of EOP. According to  OGE, ethics program reviews are a primary means of conducting  systematic oversight of executive branch ethics programs. OGE  completed a review of each agency between January 2014 and January  2018. Since the White House Counsel’s Office did not acknowledge  receipt of our notification letter we could not review EOP’s practices.

To allow for more comparability among case studies, we excluded  agencies and departments that did not have at least one PAS, and one  presidential appointee or noncareer member of the Senior Executive  Service. From the remaining list of departments and agencies, we  excluded those with nine or fewer total political appointee positions. We  divided the remaining agencies into two groups: large agencies with more  than 100 political appointees and small agencies with fewer than 100  political appointees. To ensure we observed a range of practices, we  selected a large agency with no recommendations in its most recent OGE  program review—the Department of Health and Human Services and an  agency with multiple unaddressed recommendations from its most recent  OGE program review—the Department of the Interior.

To select our final case study, we used human resources data from  OPM’s FedScope tool to determine the number of employees at each  agency as of September 2017. We limited our selection to noncabinet  agencies with between 2,000 and 10,000 employees. Out of the four  remaining agencies, we randomly selected the Small Business  Administration.

To evaluate the extent to which the three reviewed agencies have and  use appropriate internal controls to reasonably ensure that the objectives  of their ethics programs are achieved, we reviewed selected principles  from Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government based on  our review, analysis and professional judgment as to which were relevant  to effectively execute an executive branch ethics program. Selected  internal control principles included:

3.01: Management should establish an organizational structure,  assign responsibility, and delegate authority to achieve the entity’s  objectives;

4.01: Management should demonstrate a commitment to recruit,  develop, and retain competent individuals;

10.01: Management should design control activities to achieve  objectives and respond to risks; and

14.01: Management should internally communicate the necessary  quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives.

Reviewed agencies confirmed that these internal control principles were  relevant to effectively execute their ethics program. We provided each  agency with an identical set of questions based on the selected internal  control principles and components. We used agency responses to  questions and supporting documentation to evaluate whether agencies’  policies and processes to oversee ethics compliance for political  appointees were consistent with the internal control principles.

We used a nongeneralizable random sampling method to select political  appointees whose documentation we would review for compliance with  certain ethics requirements. Agencies provided data detailing the political  appointees within the agency at any point in time beginning January 20,  2017 and as of January 28, 2018. To assess the reliability of the data, we  asked each agency’s officials about how the data were obtained, where  the data came from, and what steps, if any, they each took to assure the  accuracy and completeness of the data. Officials at each agency  knowledgeable about their data provided responses. Based on those  responses, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to  indicate each agency’s political appointees, with start and end dates, for  use in selecting a sample of appointees at each agency. Within each  agency, we used random sampling to identify up to three PAS appointees  and up to nine non-PAS appointees, including up to three appointees that  separated from the agency during the time frame above. Each case study  agency completed a data collection instrument that identified the  applicable ethics requirements for each selected appointee. Each  agency provided documentation to communicate how those requirements  were met for each appointee. We reviewed the documentation to  determine whether agency internal controls were sufficient to ensure that  certain ethics program requirements were met. In addition, we conducted  interviews with agency ethics officials, as needed, to discuss  documentation provided. We also conducted several interviews with OGE  officials to inform how we developed the data collection instrument and  evaluate appointee compliance in alignment with OGE’s principles and  practices. Our review of political appointees’ documentation was limited to  testing the sufficiency of the agencies’ ethics program processes and  procedures. We did not review financial disclosure forms with the intent of  identifying conflicts of interest nor did we perform a conflict of interest  analysis. Also, because we used a nongeneralizable sample of political  appointees, results from the sample cannot be used to make inferences  about all the agencies’ political appointees.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to February  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Use of Internal Controls in Reviewed Agencies’ Ethics Programs

Appendix II: Use of Internal Controls in  Reviewed Agencies’ Ethics Programs Has the agency established an organizational structure for its  ethics program?

Management should demonstrate a  commitment to recruit, develop, and retain  competent individuals.

Are agency ethics program staff evaluated?

Are agency ethics program staff’s expectations developed and  documented?

Does the agency commit resources to the ethics program?

Does the agency recruit, develop, and train ethics program  staff?

Does the agency prepare alternate or contingency plans for  ethics program staff attrition, succession, or other potential  disruptions to staff levels?

Management should design control activities  to achieve objectives and respond to risks.

Does the agency have goals and objectives for the ethics  program?

Are these goals and objectives documented?

Does the agency have processes and procedures in place to  support the goals and objectives of the ethics program?

Does the agency have processes and procedures in place to  ensure political appointees who are not Presidential Appointees  with Senate Confirmation do not undertake an activity that  represents an actual or apparent conflict of interest?

Does the agency have processes and procedures in place to  ensure that political appointees receive required training?

Management should internally communicate  the necessary quality information to achieve  the entity’s objectives.

Does the agency communicate ethics program related  information to political appointees?

Signed the Executive Order 13770, “Ethics  Pledge”

Presidential Appointee with Senate  confirmation (PAS) nominee financial  disclosure report filed no later than 5 days  after nomination by the President  PAS nominee signed an Ethics Agreement  to address identified conflicts of interest  Non-PAS new entrant financial disclosure  report filed within 30 days of assuming the  duties of the position, or within extension of  time for filing  Received live ethics briefing within 15 days  of appointment (PAS only)

Termination financial disclosure report filed  within 30 days of leaving government (if  appointee departed from the agency)

Because we used a nongeneralizable sample of political appointees, results from the sample cannot  be used to make inferences about all of the agencies’ political appointees.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration

Appendix VI: Comments from the United States Office of Government Ethics

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the above contact, Melissa Wolf and Carol Henn (Assistant  Directors), Erinn L. Sauer (Analyst-in-Charge), Caitlin Cusati, Ann  Czapiewski, Robert Gebhart, Travis Hill, James Lager, Brittaini Maul,  Steven Putansu, Mary Raneses, Andrew J. Stephens, and Mackenzie D.  Verniero made major contributions to this report.

Federal ethics programs seek to safeguard the integrity of governmental decision-making. That includes oversight of political appointees serving in the executive branch.

We reviewed information available on executive branch political appointees and examined 3 agencies' ethics programs. We found

There is no single source of publicly available, comprehensive, and timely data on appointees

2 of the 3 agencies we examined could strengthen their programs

We made recommendations to improve the ethics programs in 2 of the agencies we reviewed, and also asked Congress to consider requiring the collection and publishing of information on appointees.