The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report that the Pentagon’s independent oversight office for intelligence activities – created in 1982 and headed by the Defense Department’s (DoD) senior intelligence oversight official (SIOO) – must be strengthened to avoid future risks to the program.
According to the Feb. 13 report, the DoD is not currently positioned to ensure its intelligence oversight is effective due to issues like the unknown status of prior inspection recommendations.
GAO found that the SIOO has conducted inspections of DoD components over the last five years and identified over 100 findings and recommendations for improvement to these components’ intelligence oversight programs. However, the intelligence oversight office does not track the status of all recommendations it has made to DOD components.
“By improving its monitoring of prior recommendations, the office would know if components were addressing identified deficiencies,” the 58-page report says.
GAO also found that in 2022, the office transitioned from conducting inspections of individual components to department-wide topic assessments.
“The cessation of more specific inspections introduces risks – such as increased reliance on component oversight programs,” the watchdog’s report says. “Without taking steps to mitigate the risks of ceasing inspections, there may be fewer opportunities to identify improper activities.”
Finally, GAO argues that the office’s process for its new topic assessments do not incorporate all 22 standards that GAO identified as necessary to develop high-quality and reliable products. For example, the office met most standards but only somewhat met standards for quality control and assessing risk and independence of investigators.
“If the office meets all 22 standards, the office could increase confidence in the quality and credibility of the oversight information it provides to DOD leadership,” the report says.
GAO made three recommendations to DoD to improve the monitoring of inspection recommendations; mitigate risks of not conducting inspections; and improve its topic assessments by meeting all standards for high-quality and credible reports.
The department agreed with the first two recommendations and partially agreed with the third.
