Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Actions Needed to Safeguard Inspector General Independence and Evaluate Capital Investment Outcomes
Fast Facts
Nearly 760,000 trips are made each weekday using Washington, D.C.'s Metro rail and bus system. In recent years, Metro's operations have come under scrutiny.
Metro's Office of Inspector General is supposed to provide independent oversight of its operations, but we found some threats to that independence. For example, Metro's board doesn't have procedures to remove an IG—meaning an IG could be terminated for any reason. This may lead IGs to fear reprisal for issuing reports that are critical of the agency.
Our recommendations address this and other issues.
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO identified 15 key attributes that help ensure the independence of Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). Most (13) of these attributes were present at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) OIG, including the authority to audit and investigate, issue subpoenas, and develop the OIG's budget. In addition, WMATA has taken actions to carry out the reforms to WMATA's OIG contained in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), including delegating human resources and procurement authorities to the OIG.
Of the remaining two key attributes of OIG independence, one was not present at WMATA's OIG and one was partially present.
- Not present: WMATA's Board of Directors (Board) does not have procedures in place for the removal of an Inspector General (IG), such as advance notice to Congress of a planned removal. Without established removal procedures, an IG may fear termination in response to issuing critical reporting.
- Partially present: The OIG has limited ability to communicate with Congress because the Board has not established a policy that the IG may communicate with Congress at the IG's discretion. Former WMATA IGs and OIG officials told GAO the Board and management discouraged the IG from communicating with Congress both privately and in public settings, such as hearings. Board officials told GAO the Board has never prevented the IG from communicating with Congress. Without a policy specifying that the IG may communicate with Congress at the IG's discretion, the OIG will not have assurance that it can inform Congress and respond to Congress's needs.
Presence of GAO-Identified Attributes of Independence at WMATA's Office of the Inspector General
The IIJA also contained provisions for WMATA to implement performance measures to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of major capital projects. In 2022, WMATA created a pilot program to measure capital investment outcomes. This program fully met two of five leading practices for the design of pilot programs. This program partially met or did not meet the three remaining leading practices related to 1) a data gathering strategy, 2) criteria to identify lessons learned and inform decisions about scalability, and 3) a data analysis plan to track program performance and evaluate final results. While WMATA is not required to follow these leading practices, adopting them could help WMATA assess whether the pilot program is achieving its objective of measuring the outcomes of capital investments.
Why GAO Did This Study
WMATA serves a critical function in the national capital region. Its rail and bus system connects residents and visitors to jobs, housing, and essential services. In recent years, WMATA's operations have come under scrutiny, raising the importance of WMATA's oversight.
The IIJA includes a provision for GAO to report on the implementation of reforms to WMATA's OIG and capital planning process. This report examines (1) how WMATA OIG's independence compares to key attributes of an independent OIG, and (2) the extent to which WMATA implemented the IIJA's requirement to develop performance outcome measures for WMATA's capital investments, among other objectives.
GAO reviewed WMATA documents and compared WMATA's OIG to attributes of an independent OIG identified by GAO based on the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and other information. GAO assessed WMATA's pilot program to measure capital investment outcomes against GAO's leading practices.
Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations to WMATA, that (1) the Board develop procedures for IG removal, (2) the Board develop a policy to ensure the IG's direct communication with Congress, and (3) the WMATA General Manager adopt leading practices to assess its measurement of capital investment outcomes. WMATA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO's recommendations, but identified actions it plans to take. GAO stands by its recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Other | The WMATA Board Chair should work with the Board members to develop formal procedures for the removal of an IG that include a Board vote and advance notification of Congress, for example by providing Congress with the Board's rationale for removing the IG 30 days in advance. (Recommendation 1) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Other | The WMATA Board Chair should work with the Board members to establish a policy providing that the IG may communicate directly with Congress about findings and recommendations from the OIG's work, at the IG's discretion. This would include communication with committees, subcommittees, members, and staff. (Recommendation 2) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority | The General Manager of WMATA should adopt leading practices for the Capital Investment Performance Outcome Measurement Program. This includes (1) preparing and implementing an evaluation plan that clearly articulates an assessment methodology and data gathering strategy for all components of the program, (2) identifying criteria and standards to inform decisions about scalability, and (3) preparing and implementing a data analysis plan to track program progress and facilitate evaluation of final results of the program. (Recommendation 3) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|