This week the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
published a report on Cybersecurity
Actions Needed to Improve CyberCorps Scholarship for Service
Program. The program was started in 2000. Since that time the program has
awarded about $621 million in scholarships to over 4,707 recipients.
According to the Highlights section of the actual report:
“GAO was asked to review the Scholarship
for Service Program. GAO determined the extent to which (1) NSF and OPM are
complying with program legal requirements, and (2) NSF has identified,
analyzed, mitigated, and reported on program risks.”
The report includes three recommendations for the National
• NSF should periodically evaluate
and make public, information on how long CyberCorps® Scholarship for Service
Program scholarship recipients stay in the positions they enter upon
• NSF should provide Congress with
all required information in a timely manner for the CyberCorps® Scholarship for
Service Program so Congress can use this information to make informed decisions
regarding the SFS Program.
• NSF should develop and implement
a risk management strategy that includes a process to effectively identify,
analyze, mitigate, and report CyberCorps® Scholarship for Service Program risks
The report includes two recommendations for the Office of
• OMB should establish a time frame
for implementing a process to ensure that all CyberCorps® Scholarship for
Service Program scholarship recipients provide their institutions of higher
education and the Office of Personnel Management (in coordination with the
National Science Foundation) with annual verifiable documentation of post-award
employment and up-to-date contact information for a period of at least through
the end of their work service obligation.
• OMB should ensure the collection
of complete and consistent data that relate to the fulfillment of all
post-award obligations or requirements pursuant to the CyberCorps® Scholarship
for Service Program.
NOTE: GAO actually published two very nearly identical
both on October 29th, 2022. Most of the changes are very minor
formatting changes, the biggest change that I have found in a quick look is
that the later report refers to the ‘Office of Personnel Management’ in a
number of locations where the earlier report refers to it in the same places as
the ‘U.S. Office of Personnel Management’.