It also provides ethics training to  agency officials. As of that date, about 3 percent of those SGEs  (1,138 of 40,424) were not serving on federal boards and employed as  experts or consultants. Over a 10-year period (from 2005 to 2014), we  found that agencies generally reported more limited use in 2014 than  in 2005, and used an annual average of approximately 2,000 SGEs not  serving on federal boards, with a peak of about 3,100 in 2009 and a low  of about 500 in 2013. Four of Five Selected Agencies Had Reliable Data on SGEs Not Serving on Federal Boards While HHS Had Challenges Reporting Reliable Data

		OGE Data Reflected Agency Reporting

Agencies are responsible for identifying SGEs and reporting these data to  OGE (through its annual questionnaire) and OPM (through information on  personnel actions in EHRI). Moreover, accurate  and complete data are important to allow OGE and Congress to provide  informed oversight of agencies using SGEs not serving on federal boards. Section 3109 permits agencies to  appoint experts or consultants without regard to the competitive service  hiring rules. Officials from four of the selected agencies told us that supervisors are  generally responsible for tracking whether the SGE stays within the 130- day service estimate. DOJ officials permit their SGEs to track their own  days of service. Our analysis of 23 OGE reviews conducted at the CFO Act and  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for fiscal years 2005 to 2014  showed no issues specific to SGEs not serving on federal boards. Agencies are responsible for reporting on SGEs not serving on federal  boards to OGE and OPM requires agencies to identify SGEs on an  individual’s personnel action. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure HHS has reliable data on SGEs not serving on federal  boards, we recommend that the Secretary of HHS take steps to improve  the reliability of data on SGEs not serving on boards. In OGE’s written comments, it  partially concurred with our recommendation to determine whether other  executive branch agencies are experiencing data challenges similar to  HHS, State, and NRC. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this engagement were to review agencies’ use and  oversight of the special government employee (SGE) designation in the  federal workforce for SGEs not serving on federal boards at the 24  agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990,  as amended, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This report (1) describes what is known about the total number of SGEs  not serving on federal boards in the executive branch as well as at CFO  Act agencies and CFPB; (2) assesses the extent to which the Office of  Government Ethics (OGE), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and  selected agencies identify and report data on SGEs not serving on   federal boards; (3) assesses how selected agencies appoint, utilize, and  oversee SGEs not serving on federal boards, and describes the relevant  hiring authorities and ethics requirements; and (4) examines how, if at all,  OGE oversees and ensures compliance with ethics requirements for  SGEs, including the proper identification of individuals as SGEs,  consistent with 18 U.S.C. We selected five agencies—the Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS), Department of Justice (Justice), Department of State  (State), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Nuclear Regulatory  Commission (NRC) —to provide case illustrations of agencies’ use of  SGEs not serving on federal boards. To assess the extent to which OGE, OPM, and selected agencies  identify, collect, and report data on SGEs not serving on federal boards,  we analyzed OGE’s, OPM’s, and selected agencies’ data related to the  number of SGEs not serving on federal boards at CFO Act agencies and  CFPB for fiscal years 2005 through 2014. For two agencies, we found several  instances of misidentified SGEs not serving on federal boards, and after  discussion with the agencies, they provided corrected data. § 3109, or a similar  agency-specific authority).
Why GAO Did This Study

The SGE category was created by Congress in 1962 to make certain ethics rules less restrictive than for other federal employees to overcome obstacles in hiring outside experts and other temporary employees for occasional service. SGEs are employees appointed to serve for not more than 130 days during any one year period.
GAO was asked to examine agencies' use of SGEs not serving on federal boards. This report: (1) describes what is known about the total number of SGEs not serving on federal boards; (2) assesses the extent to which OGE, OPM, and selected agencies identify, collect, and report data; (3) assesses how selected agencies appoint, use, and track SGEs; and (4) examines how OGE oversees and ensures compliance with ethics requirements.
GAO analyzed OGE, OPM, and agency data; reviewed agency documentation; and interviewed agency officials. GAO selected five agencies—the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, State, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and National Science Foundation—based in part, on the number of SGEs and ratio of SGEs not serving on federal boards to total employees.

What GAO Found

Federal agencies made limited use of special government employees (SGE) not serving on federal boards. As of December 2014, approximately 3 percent of SGEs (1,138 of 40,424) were working as experts or consultants and not serving on federal boards, according to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Over a 10-year period (2005 to 2014), GAO found that agencies used an annual average of approximately 2,000 SGEs, with a peak of about 3,100 in 2009 and a low of about 500 in 2013.
Agencies are responsible for reporting on SGEs not serving on federal boards to OGE. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requires agencies to identify SGEs on an individual's personnel action. OGE's data reflected what agencies reported on SGEs not serving on federal boards. Three of the five agencies GAO reviewed had challenges reporting reliable data on SGEs not serving on federal boards. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had difficulty distinguishing between SGEs not serving on federal boards and those who were, and HHS did not explain data discrepancies. GAO found instances of misidentified SGEs not serving on federal boards at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of State (State), but the agencies provided corrected data. Weak internal coordination and misunderstanding about the SGE designation contributed to the identification challenges. Stronger data would better position agencies to report on SGEs and provide the required ethics training. Moreover, accurate and complete data are important to allow OGE and Congress to provide informed oversight of agencies.
Three of the five selected agencies primarily used expert and consultant hiring authorities to appoint SGEs not serving on federal boards. The other two agencies generally used their agency-specific authorities. The agencies used these employees in specialized areas (see figure). Four of five agencies said supervisors are generally responsible for tracking SGEs' days of service. One agency permits SGEs to track their own days.
OGE has not found any issues specific to SGEs not serving on federal boards. GAO's analysis of 23 OGE reviews at Chief Financial Officers Act agencies and the Consumer Financial Protection Board for fiscal years 1998 to 2014 showed no issues specific to SGEs not serving on federal boards. Further, OGE had no outstanding recommendations related to SGEs at the selected agencies.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends HHS take steps to improve the reliability of data on SGEs not serving on federal boards and OGE should determine whether other agencies are experiencing data challenges similar to HHS, State, and NRC and take appropriate action. HHS concurred. OGE partially concurred. GAO maintains that OGE should undertake the actions as discussed further in the report.